Preamble

The House met at Eleven o'Clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

ROYAL ASSENT

Message to attend the Lords Commissioners.

The House went; and, having returned—

Mr. SPEAKER reported the Royal Assent to:

1. Civil List Act, 1952.
2. Appropriation Act, 1952.
3. Motor Vehicles (International Circulation) Act, 1952.
4. Crown Lessees (Protection of Sub-Tenants) Act, 1952.
5. Affiliation Orders Act, 1952.
6. Heating Appliances (Fireguards) Act, 1952.
7. Disposal of Uncollected Goods Act, 1952.
8. Customs and Excise Act, 1952.
9. Pensions (Increase) Act, 1952.
10. Hypnotism Act, 1952.
11. Rating and Valuation (Scotland) Act, 1952.
12. Costs in Criminal Cases Act, 1952.
13. Court of Chancery of Lancaster Act, 1952.
14. Children and Young Persons (Amendment) Act, 1952.
15. Isle of Man (Customs) Act, 1952.
16. Prison Act, 1952.
17. Housing Act, 1952.
18. Town Development Act, 1952.
19. Magistrates' Courts Act, 1952.
20. Kilmarnock Corporation Order Confirmation Act, 1952.
21. Leith Harbour and Docks Order Confirmation Act, 1952.
22. Aberdeen Extension Order Confirmation Act, 1952.
23. Dundee Harbour and Tay Ferries Order Confirmation Act, 1952.
24. Brighton Corporation (Trolley Vehicles) Order Confirmation Act, 1952.
25. Derby Corporation (Trolley Vehicles) Order Confirmation Act, 1952.
26. Portsmouth Corporation (Trolley Vehicles) Order Confirmation Act, 1952.

27. Pier and Harbour Order (Brighton) Confirmation Act, 1952.
28. Pier and Harbour Order (Great Yarmouth) Confirmation Act, 1952.
29. Pier and Harbour Order (Seaham Harbour) Confirmation Act, 1952.
30. Pier and Harbour Order (Herne Bay) Confirmation Act. 1952.
31. Pier and Harbour Order (King's Lynn) Confirmation Act, 1952.
32. Pier and Harbour Order (Minehead) Confirmation Act, 1952.
33. Governesses Benevolent Institution Act, 1952.
34. Canterbury and District Water Act, 1952.
35. Tottenham Corporation Act, 1952.
36. Nottingham Corporation Act 1952.
37. British Transport Commission Act, 1952.
38. Glossop Water Act, 1952.
39. Fareham Urban District Council Act, 1952.
40. Rochdale Canal Act, 1952.
41. City of London (Guild Churches) Act, 1952.
42. Scottish Mutual Assurance Society Act, 1952.
43. Newcastle upon Tyne Corporation Act, 1952.
44. Clifton Suspension Bridge Act, 1952.
45. Cheshire Brine Pumping (Compensation for Subsidence) Act, 1952.
46. Kingston upon Hull Corporation Act, 1952.
47. Llanelly District Traction Act, 1952.
48. Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire Traction Act, 1952.
49. North Wales Hydro-Electric Power Act, 1952.
50. Preston Corporation Act, 1952.
51. Scottish Amicable Life Assurance Society's Act, 1952.
52. West Hartlepool Extension Act, 1952.
53. Essex County Council Act, 1952.
54. Glamorgan County Council Act, 1952.

PRIVATE BUSINESS

HAMILTON BURGH ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL

LERWICK HARBOUR ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL

Considered; to be read Third time upon Tuesday, 14th October.

HOUSE OF COMMONS CATERING (DISMISSALS)

Miss Mice Bacon: Miss Mice Bacon (by Private Notice) asked the hon. Member for Woolwich, West, as Chairman of the Kitchen Committee, why several members of the waiting staff in the Dining Rooms have been dismissed, and what wages will be paid to the trainees who will replace them after the Recess?

Mr. Steward: Five of the waiting staff in the Dining Rooms have recently been dismissed for inefficiency or unsuitability; namely, one from the Terrace Dining Room, one from the Members' Tea Room and three from the Members' Dining Room. I must emphasise that these dismissals are not connected with the possibility of utilising the services of trainees in certain sections of the Refreshment Department if and when they become available. In the event of trainees being introduced, they will be paid the rates of pay permitted by the particular college to which they belong. They will not replace permanent staff whose services are considered satisfactory.
I must also emphasise that matters of staff discipline are normally left to the Kitchen Committee, which in its efforts on behalf of hon. Members is guided by no party or political decision. However, in view of the interest shown by certain hon. Members, I have called a meeting of the Kitchen Committee for 2.15 o'clock today, when I shall fully report to my Committee the representations which hon. Members have been so good as to make.
Perhaps I may be allowed to make a full statement as to the steps proposed by the Committee as soon as the House reassembles.

Miss Bacon: In view of the fact that the written answer to a Question yesterday stated that 16 of the staff have been dismissed, and since Questions were put on the Order Paper three notices have been

withdrawn, can the hon. Gentleman state that all the dismissals which have taken place have been due to the unsatisfactory nature of the staff? Is he not aware that one person who received her notice had been here for seven years, another for three and a half years, and several for over a year? In that case, has it not taken the Kitchen Committee a long time to realise that these staff have been unsatisfactory?

Mr. Steward: I am satisfied that the decision to dismiss certain members of the staff was taken by the Committee by almost a unanimous decision.

Mr. Gibson: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the suggestion of reconsideration by the Commitee this afternoon will be welcomed? If it is a fact that five of the staff have been dismissed for what he calls inefficiency, is not some further explanation needed of why 11 others at least have gone? Would it not be a good thing if provision were made, as is made in other public employment, for some sort of appeal machinery which the staff can use when occasions of this kind arise?

Mrs. Braddock: Will the Chairman of the Kitchen Committee bear this in mind in reconsideration: that the Kitchen Committee in 1945 made arrangements that the staff should be in permanent employment, in order that they could obtain holidays when the House was not sitting, and that to dismiss people just when a holiday is starting is a breach of a previous agreement reached and puts the staff who are given notice in a very difficult situation? They have had no opportunity of making alternative arrangements, because they expected the agreement that was made when a Labour Government were in power to be honoured by Tory Governments also.

Mr. Steward: The question referred to the waiting staff in the Dining Rooms, and the figure of five applies to that. The 16 staff who have been dismissed throughout the Refreshment Department have been dismissed on the grounds of inefficiency or unsuitability.
With regard to the suggestion of the hon. Member for Clapham (Mr. Gibson) that there should be some means of dealing with staff who are dismissed—I think he has in mind some right of appeal—I ask him why, when his party were for


six and a half years—[Interruption.] I remind him that when Members of the Opposition represented the majority on the Kitchen Committee for six and a half years, they never once questioned the efficiency of the Manager to exercise disciplinary action or to effect dismissals.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. There are four Ministerial statements and one personal statement to come, and I think that we ought to pass on.

Dr. King: On a point of order. In view of the fact that last night a malicious and false headline in the "Evening Standard" stated:
Commons lose £21,000 feeding M.P.s.
may I take the opportunity of asking the Chairman of the Kitchen Committee to give us the information which would show the country the real position?

Mr. Speaker: That is not a point of order. I did not see the headline.

MALTA (FINANCIAL AID)

The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Oliver Lyttelton): With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I wish to make a short statement on the subject of financial aid to Malta.
During the past two months, the Minister of State and I have discussed exhaustively with the Maltese Prime Minister and his colleagues his Government's request for financial assistance.
Her Majesty's Government have offered a substantial measure of financial aid to Malta, and have gone to the limit in an effort to conclude an agreement satisfactory to both Governments. I am sorry to have to tell the House that the Maltese Prime Minister has not found himself able to accept our proposals.
I am circulating in the OFFICIAL REPORT the details of the final offer which I made to the Maltese Prime Minister yesterday. The House will realise that this offer is quite distinct from the £31 million which Malta is receiving for the repair of war damage and reconstruction.

M. J. Griffiths: We shall study the detailed report. May I ask whether this grant will be in addition to any grant which Malta and other territories get under the Colonial Development and Welfare Fund, and secondly, whether, in view of the difficulties of establishing new industries in Malta to absorb its increasing population the grant will be available to assist emigration?

Mr. Lyttelton: I am not quite clear about the first point raised by the right hon. Gentleman, but on the second there is a substantial grant for the next three or four years to assist the Maltese Government's emigration plan.

Mr. Griffiths: On the first point, I gather that the right hon. Gentleman has made an offer of financial aid. Will that be extra financial aid and not included in a grant under the Colonial Development and Welfare Fund?

Mr. Lyttelton: Yes, Malta has £1½million in the original grant and we have given assurances that if further sums become available, the claims of Malta will be considered with those of other places.

Mr. T. Reid: Have all steps been taken to promote emigration from Malta, because, with the present rate of increase in population in Malta, it is obvious that that little island cannot support the teeming population?

Mr. Lyttelton: That is why I referred in particular to the sums Her Majesty's Government were willing to bear in addition to the sums spent by the Maltese Government to assist emigration which would amount to a maximum programme of about £300,000 a year.

Mr. Fenner Brockway: Will the right hon. Gentleman indicate to us the reason the Prime Minister of Malta has declined this offer?

Mr. Lyttelton: No, I can only say, as I have indicated, that I will circulate the terms in the OFFICIAL REPORT. The Prime Minister of Malta has not been able to accept them.

Following is the statement:

(1) Subject to the provision by Parliament of the necessary funds, Her Majesty's Government have agreed to give financial aid to Malta. The Maltese Government have agreed to make use of


this financial aid in the manner seat out hereunder:

(i) Her Majesty's Government will make available to Malta during the current financial year a sum of £500,000.
(ii) The Maltese Government will allocate at least £100,000 to expenditure on emigration during the current year and will devote to additional expenditure on emigration either this year or in the future any part of the balance of the United Kingdom assistance not needed for expenditure on other recurrent services for which provision has been made in this year's draft estimates.
(iii) Her Majesty's Government are prepared to meet for a period of four years, starting with the financial year 1953–54 two thirds of Malta's annual expenditure on an emigration programme to be agreed between the two Governments, up to a maximum contribution of £200,000 in any year.
(iv) Her Majesty's Government will make available to the Maltese Government an annual grant equivalent to the net cost of the Imperial side of the Dyarchy in Malta.
(v) Her Majesty's Government recognise that the Maltese Government have before them social equipment projects, accumulated over a period of years, involving the expenditure of over £5 million but which the Maltese Government propose to restrict to a programme of £3 million over a period of five years. Towards this programme Her Majesty's Government are making available £1,500,000 from Colonial Development and Welfare funds under the present Acts which expire in 1956. If Parliament by new legislation provides more funds and if conditions similar to those now obtaining continue to prevail at the time, Her Majesty's Government will ensure that Malta will have an appropriate share of those funds as further assistance in respect of the remainder of the programme.
(2) It is the firm hope of both Governments that after providing for essential needs, Malta will be able to balance her future budgets without external assistance. But if it should be agreed that

the same financial difficulties which have beset Malta and which have been accentuated during the last two years still persist and could not be overcome by her own unaided efforts, then Her Majesty's Government would in the same spirit of co-operation be ready to approach Parliament for further financial assistance.
(3) It is agreed that a Consultative Committee shall be set up in order to provide regular means of consultation in future between the Maltese Government and Her Majesty's Government on all matters of common interest, and that it should meet at least once a year.

D. C. THOMSON, LTD. (DISPUTE SETTLEMENT TERMS)

The Minister of Labour (Sir Walter Monckton): With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I should like to make a statement about the position reached in my discussions with the representatives of the firm of D. C. Thomson and Co. and the printing trade unions, following the report of the Court of Inquiry.
I am glad to say that both the firm and the trade unions have shown themselves ready to co-operate in finding a solution to the questions at issue, which involve important points of principle affecting the public interest. Both the firm and the trade unions have indicated the steps which they are prepared to take in keeping with the Report.
The firm have stated that, subject to certain safeguards which the unions mainly concerned have already agreed to provide, they would be prepared to cease to insist on any undertaking by their employees not to join a trade union. A document has been prepared in consultation with representatives of the firm and the printing trade unions, embodying the points to which the firm and the unions attach importance and it is in an agreed form for signature by the parties as a complete setlement of the issues affecting the points of principle. The firm have informed me that they are prepared to sign and implement this document as soon as the unions are prepared to do likewise.
The executive of the Printing and Kindred Trades' Federation are meeting on Wednesday next to receive the report of their representatives, and I am awaiting a communication from them.

Mr. Robens: I am sure the whole House will be very gratified at the statement the Minister of Labour has made, and we congratulate him and all concerned on the happy outcome of these negotiations. I should like to ask one question; could he say what is the position of the men at Glasgow still seeking reinstatement?

Sir W. Monckton: The right hon. Gentleman, to whom I am obliged for his observations, is quite right—the difficulty so far as the unions are concerned is the position of the men at Glasgow who are seeking reinstatement. The unions have informed me that they are prepared to have the matter settled by arbitration, but the House will appreciate that consent of both parties to such a course is required and the position is being explored.

Mr. Lee: We are all very happy to hear the report, but the right hon. and learned Gentleman will agree that signature has not yet been effected by both sides and that the issue at stake is of great importance. In the event of a settlement not being possible, would he agree to set up the arbitration necessary to finish the whole question?

Sir W. Monckton: I would rather not say more than I have said. I am certainly prepared, but, as I have said, it requires the consent of the two parties. I am exploring, and will explore, the possibility.

Mr. Strachey: While congratulating the right hon. and learned Gentleman on the settlement, may we be assured that his Department will in future do its utmost to see that this hitherto benighted firm—[HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw."]—Mr. Speaker, I am inclined to withdraw the word "hitherto"—that this benighted firm, to correct myself, which must be one of the very last in the country to refuse to recognise trade unions, does not discriminate against those of its members who wish to become members of trade unions?

Sir W. Monckton: Like the right hon. Gentleman, I am sure that what we want to see is the light of peace come into this. I am sure that the less we say the more likely it is to come.

ANGLO-CZECHOSLOVAKIAN TRADE (QUOTAS)

The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Peter Thorneycroft): Mr. Speaker, with your permission and that of the House, I should like to make a short statement on trade with Czechoslovakia.
I informed the House on 17th July, in answer to a Private Notice Question by the hon. Member for Ardwick (Mr. L. M. Lever), that in accordance with the Trade and Financial Agreement concluded by the previous Administration with the Czechoslovak Government in 1949, negotiations were in progress in Prague to fix the level of quotas governing trade between the two countries for the coming year. These negotiations have now reached a final stage, and I expect that an agreed minute will he signed today.
The essential features of the Five Year Trade and Financial Agreement of 1949 were that we promised to admit certain less essential Czech goods to a total annual value of £5¿ million, while the Czechoslovak Government promised to send us certain essential commodities such as sugar and softwood, to license imports of United Kingdom goods up to £1½ million a year, and to pay not less than £15 million within the five-year term of the Agreement in respect of Czechoslovak financial obligations to the United Kingdom. This Agreement, therefore, is a valuable one to us, and I acknowledge the part played by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Rochester and Chatham (Mr. Bottomley) in concluding it.
Our object, therefore, in this year's negotiations was to preserve the agreement, while doing our best to reduce the quotas for the import of certain less essential goods from Czechoslovakia in line with the reductions we have had to make in imports from Western European countries. In any negotiations of this kind, there has to be a certain amount of give and take; and we have had to take some commodities which we could


have done without. I have been asked particularly about textiles. We have succeeded in reducing the quota for textile piece goods, which in 1950–51 was £1,330,000 and in 1951–52 £300,000, to only £100,000, or only one-half of one per cent. of our textile piece goods imports from Western Europe. The quota for apparel, which in 1951–52 was £775,000, has been reduced to £370,000. On our side, we have managed to increase the quota for our textile exports to Czechoslovakia from £165,000 in 1951–52 to £350,000, including an important new quota of £250,000 for rayon yarn.

Mr. Bottomley: I am much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for his kind reference to myself. Will he confirm that under the new quota arrangements there will in fact be a reduction in the export of piece goods and wearing apparel to Czechoslovakia? Ought we not, in view of the unemployment situation in the textile industry of this country, to refuse to allow an import quota for any textiles for this year?

Mr. Thorneycroft: No, Sir. I think that we have done well to secure a reduction in the import quota and an important new quota for our own textile exports.

Mr. L. M. Lever: I wish to thank the right hon. Gentleman for having given me notice that he proposed to make a statement today about this all important question. Whilst appreciating that the proposed imports of textile goods into this country in the coming year will be only £100,000 instead of £300,000 as last Year, I feel that probably the fact that I raised the question is responsible for the great reduction of imports in this field. But will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that the Lancashire cotton workers will not be satisfied at all with the importation of unprinted textiles so long as there is widespread unemployment in that field today?

Mr. Thorneycroft: While not wishing in any way to disappoint the hon. Gentleman, I would say that his influence on this point has been no greater and no less than the efforts of other hon. Members on all sides of the House who have taken an interest in the matter. The figure of £100,000 is only one-fiftieth

of one per cent. of production in this country. I would say that we have an interest in exporting textiles and if we are to do that it is in our interest not to intensify quotas or have quotas put up against us in all these fields.

ANGLO-AMERICAN TIN AGREEMENT

The Secretary for Overseas Trade (Mr. H. R. Mackeson): With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and the leave of the House. I should like to make a statement in connection with the Anglo-American tin agreement.
I am glad to be able to inform the House of the satisfactory outcome of the arrangements which were made in the supply of tin to the United States under the Anglo-American Agreement of 18th January last.
Hon. Members will recall that as part of the Agreement the two Governments expressed the desire that more normal arrangements for the conduct of this trade should be established as soon as possible. The Government of the United States recently informed Her Majesty's Government that they proposed to remove the ban on the private import of tin into the United States which has existed since March, 1951.
In view of the fact that purchases of tin under the Agreement have now been virtually completed, Her Majesty's Government have readily agreed to release the Government of the United States from the limitations in Clause 4 upon the buying of tin in competition with our purchases on their behalf. The text of Notes exchanged between the two Governments has been published as a White Paper today.
When deliveries have been completed sales of tin under the Agreement will have realised nearly 53 million dollars. The net charge on the relevant Vote is not likely to exceed £150,000. This is considerably less than was expected.
The private import of tin into the United States is being restored with effect from today.

Mr. Gaitskell: Can the hon. Gentleman say what effects he thinks this change is likely to have on the dollar earnings of the sterling area? Secondly,


can he say, in the light of the new situation, what steps Her Majesty's Government are taking to try to secure greater stability in the price of tin and avoid the very serious fluctuations in price which have occurred in recent years?

Mr. Mackeson: The right hon. Gentleman's first question concerns a matter of opinion which I do not think I should give. As regards stability of the price of tin, now that we have restored the normal freedom of the market it is considered by both Governments that there should not be the wild fluctuations in prices which have occurred in the past.

Mr. Gaitskell: Are we to understand that the Government are to take no steps whatever to try to get an international tin agreement? Is it not quite clear from experience in the past, when tin was handled by private enterprise, that there were serious fluctuations? Does the hon. Gentleman not think he had better do something about this?

Mr. Mackeson: We are going to restore the freedom of the London Metal Exchange.

Mr. G. Wilson: Are we to understand that the net result of the Prime Minister's visit to America and the consequential agreements is that not only has this country received a great deal of steel but that we are now able to free the tin market, to the mutual benefit of both countries?

Mr. Mackeson: Yes, Sir. The Americans have more than honoured their agreement and have delivered in the past half year more steel than they promised the Prime Minister when he was last in the United States.

Mr. Harold Davies: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this tin agreement is not giving to the Singapore smelting industry a fair deal, and that the smelting is now being moved to Texas, with the result that Malayan tin smelting is being destroyed?

Mr. Mackeson: That remark is quite inaccurate.

Mr. Hayman: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the whole history of private dealing in tin in this country has shown a great instability of prices, with heavy employment at one period, followed by work, and then unemployment again?

Mr. Mackeson: As a result of the steps that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister took, we have been able to sell tin to the United States. Most hon. Gentlemen know that there was no purchase of tin for several months last year. We have reached a reasonable agreement which should be of great assistance to the workers in the tin industry all over the world.

Mr. Shinwell: In view of the fact that we have had several statements made by Ministers this morning, cannot we now, on the eve of the Recess, have a few words from the Prime Minister in the course of which he might advance valid reasons why this Government should remain in office?

PERSONAL STATEMENT

Mr. Aneurin Bevan: With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I should like to make a personal statement arising out of a statement made by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition yesterday.
In the first place, I should like to apologise to the House for any apparent discourtesy to the House arising out of the fact that I was not in my place when the statement was made. I think that I shall be accorded, by those who have been Members of this House for many years, as having a punctilious regard for the procedure of the House. Therefore, I can assure hon. Members in all parts of the House that the reason I was not in my place yesterday was that I had not the slightest idea that a statement was to be made.
In order that I might find out the degree of responsibility resting upon the messengers of the House for the fact that I was not informed, I naturally made inquiries as to what had happened to the communication which my right hon. Friend said he had sent to me. I ascertained that a note from him was delivered to the messenger outside the Chamber at 20 minutes to two yesterday, and that no other means of communication to reach me was resorted to—neither by telephone nor by letter.
It is not true to say, as has been said that I did not collect my post until I came to the House yesterday, because I collect my post at home, and neither in


the first nor the second post was there any communication from my right hon. Friend. It means that even if I had had the note delivered to me I should have had no time between twenty minutes to two and half-past three to consider the statement my right hon. Friend made.
In order to exculpate the messengers from any responsibility whatsoever, I should like to make it clear to the House that there was nothing at all on the envelope to indicate the urgency of the message. The envelope merely looked like thousands of other envelopes handed to the messengers day by day. It was not marked "Urgent" or "Immediate." There was no way at all of indicating to the messengers that it was an urgent message. Therefore, the messengers treated it, quite properly, as a normal communication between Members, and waited until they saw me before handing it to me. Therefore, I must say, in complete exculpation of the messengers of this House, that they behaved with the utmost propriety and that there is no responsibility on them at all. I make no more comment on that.
I am, however, I think, entitled now to explain the constitutional principles that are involved in my statement, because I think that hon. Members will agree that if my right hon. Friend's statement rests where it is, it not only accuses me of constitutional impropriety, but casts a reflection upon my personal honour.
I have looked up a number of precedents, but I do not want to delay the House, because it wishes to go on with the discussion of its public business. There is, however, one precedent which is quite clear in this matter. It arises out of the fact that, of course, the principle of collective Cabinet responsibility is the very foundation stone of constitutional Government in Great Britain. Unless colleagues can rely upon each other, then co-operation becomes absolutely impossible. There is no doubt about that at all, and my right hon. Friend is correct. Therefore, I say that I stand, as he does, by the principle of collective Cabinet responsibility.
But collective Cabinet responsibility breaks down just at the point that the collectivity breaks down, and that is when a Minister resigns. It breaks down at the point at which the

resignation takes place. If it did not do so, no resigning Minister could say why he resigned, and if any hon. Member likes to look up the constitutional precedents he will see that that is absolutely clear. I can get no better guide in this respect than the very revered and learned Member of the Labour Party who, for very many years, was regarded as one of the savants of constitutional practice, Mr. Lees-Smith.
In 1931, Mr. Lees-Smith had a discussion with the then Prime Minister about the conditions leading up to the resignation. I shall not read it all, I shall only read two passages:
Mr. LEES-SMITH: If the Prime Minister will refer to the Cabinet Minutes he will find that, although there was a discussion on a 20 per cent. cut—there was naturally a discussion upon it as it was proposed in the May Report—no such instructions were given to me.
He was discussing a Cabinet meeting.
The instructions given to me as the result of a later discussion were in regard to a shorter cut.
Then there was a discussion. No objection was made to the statement. He went on to say:
I did not, in fact, open conversations on anything at all, but I say that I was not instructed by the Cabinet to open conversations on a 20 per cent. basis. I was instructed by the Cabinet to open conversations on the lower percentages—the figure of 15 per cent., but, in fact, those conversations had not been opened by the time the Cabinet resigned."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 11th September, 1931; Vol. 256, c. 427–8.]
Here is an explicit statement by a Minister who resigned on a Cabinet discussion strictly relevant to the reasons which led to the resignation. No exception of any sort was taken, and no exception could be taken.
It will be recalled that last year, when I made my resignation statement, I attached the utmost importance to the reservations which were the subject of my right hon. Friend's interpolation yesterday. I used this language:
These cautionary words were inserted deliberately in the statements on defence production because it was obvious to myself and to my colleagues in the Government that the accelerated programme was conditional upon a number of factors not immediately within our own control."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 23rd April, 1951; Vol. 487, c. 35.]
It surely is strictly relevant to the reasons for my resignation to state the extent of my own responsibility for those words,


because that is the very issue upon which the resignation took place. That is the reason I attached so much importance to those words.
Therefore, I do not plead guilty to constitutional impropriety. On the contrary, what I have done has been strictly in accordance with precedent, and I hope I shall be exempted from any blemish which my right hon. Friend's statement yesterday may inadvertently have cast upon my reputation.

GERMANY

Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Amendment to Question [31st July]:
That this House approves the contractual arrangements between Her Majesty's Government, the Governments of France and the United States of America and the Government of the German Federal Republic concluded at Bonn on 26th May 1952, and the Treaty between Her Majesty's Government and the European Defence Community together with the Protocol to the North Atlantic Treaty which were signed at Paris on 27th May 1952; and affirms that these instruments give effect to the policy set out in the Declaration signed by the Foreign Ministers of France, the United Kingdom and the United States of America at Washington on 14th September. 1951, and pursued by successive Governments of the United Kingdom for the inclusion, of a democratic Germany, on a basis of equality, in a Continental European community, which itself will form a part of a constantly developing Atlantic community.—[Mr. Eden.]
Which Amendment was to leave out from "House," to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
while accepting the aim of the inclusion of a democratic Germany on a basis of equality, in a Continental European community, which itself will form a part of a constantly developing Atlantic community; and while accepting the principle, subject to proper safeguards and conditions, of a German armed contribution to an international system of collective security, rejects Her Majesty's Government's present proposal as inopportune, particularly at a time when attempts are still being made by the Western Powers to discuss the German problem with the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, and reaffirms the conditions first laid down in the House by the present Leader of the Opposition on 12th February 1951."—[Mr. Shinwell.]
Question again proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."

11.57 a.m.

Mr. W. M. F. Vane: After that further round in the campaign between two great personal rivals, the matter of a foreign treaty seems quite a small affair.
Last night, when the clock struck eleven, I was in the middle of a sentence in which I was trying to say that whereas the foreign policy with regard to Germany pursued by the late Government, and largely supported by us, was not entirely of their own choosing, it was, none the less, worthy of the wide measure of support which it received. I was referring to the statement on 14th September, 1951, and I wished to draw the attention of hon. Members especially to the sentence which says:
The Foreign Ministers have now instructed the High Commission to proceed to negotiations with the Federal Government which will, it is hoped culminate in early agreements between the four Governments to enter into effect together with the agreement for German participation in Western defence through the proposed European Defence Community.…
I think that the adjective "early" is worthy of our attention, because nothing which has yet been said by hon. Members on the benches opposite has convinced me that any factor has entered into this matter which caused them to change their minds from what they clearly meant in September last.
We have heard speeches which have forgotten all about this word "early." We have talked about ratification this year, next year, sometime, never, but nothing has yet been said to show why they were wrong then, or what has entered into the matter since to make them forget this particular word "early." I do not think it matters very much if they confuse themselves in this affair, but it does matter a great deal if they confuse the general public. This is the sort of thing which it is extremely difficult for the general public to understand.
Admittedly, if we penetrate into the appendix of one of the many White Papers relevant to this debate we can no doubt find, set out in technical language, the conditions under which it is hoped that E.D.C. will operate. But we must assume, I think, that that is beyond the reach of the great majority of the people of this country who are not at all clear how this military constitution we are now discussing is to


work out. If the Joint Under-Secretary cannot do so now I hope that some means will be found later by the Foreign Office to give wide circulation to a simple explanation of what we are trying to do.
Many people believe that we are to have a new independent national German army arising in Europe a short time hence. What I hope will be explained is the nature of the exact controls. We remember the Reichswehr which was set up after the First World War which, was limited, I think, to 150,000 men. It is generally admitted now that it developed along lines entirely different from those which the Allies intended. We should like to know what is in the present agreements to ensure that that sort of break out does not take place.
Then there is a small point. Is this German contingent to have a uniform of its own? I have heard that it is and that it is not. I cannot find out from any of the documents. This may seem a small point, but it would be of great interest to many people. Again, is this German contribution to come wholly under E.D.C., or are the German forces to find themselves in two divisions, those under E.D.C. and those separate and directly under their own Government? That is not clear to me.
Then there are others who are anxious to be convinced that this new arrangement will be efficient and that it will come into operation quickly and fulfil its military purpose. We must all admit that military interests have made us—both hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite and hon. Members on this side of the House—arrive at this general measure of agreement. It is a great deal easier to plan an international army on paper than it is to organise and train it to a state of efficiency on the field of battle. It is one of the curious facts of history that generation after generation supposes that a paper arrangement like this can immediately represent an efficient army.
We have only to remember the Duke of Wellington in the Peninsular War. The army under his command there was I believe of only 20 per cent. British Nationals. How many years of muddle and inefficiency were there before he had succeeded in developing a system of command which made that international

army operate as one. Again, nearer our own time, between 1939 and 1945 in every Allied command there were months of tedious and costly experiment before ways and means were discovered for cooperating with Allied contingents and effecting the command of such a simple thing as an Allied brigade in a British division. I should like to be convinced that we are going ahead with this plan in an air of realism, fully appreciating all the difficulties which exist in translating these paper plans, good though they may be, into an effective fighting force.
I conclude by urging all hon. Members to support the Motion and to forget the official Amendment which, from the speeches by hon. Members opposite, appears to please very few of them. The second Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) appears to be more closely in tone with many of their speeches. But since I gather that that Amendment is not to be called and they will not have an opportunity of dividing on it, I hope that hon. Gentlemen opposite will forget the compromise Amendment and in British interests, and, in the interests of the peace of the world, support the Government in their simple act of continuing the foreign policy which hon. Gentlemen opposite have pursued consistently for a number of years.

Mr. John Hynd: Before the hon. Gentleman sits down, may I say that I gave him notice that I wanted to ask him for an explanation of what he said last night, the full import of which I question whether he understood when he said it? Last night he said:
While that was going on, although I do not impute any motive or particular intention to the hon. Member for Attercliffe (Mr. J. Hynd), who was the first holder of the office of the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, there was, I am sure, a feeling that whatever we did in the administration of Germany at least we ought not to put unnecessary obstructions in the path of the German Socialist Party and organisations closely allied to it.
Now, I do not think that has stood us or the German Socialist Party in good stead. But we were not alone among the Occupying Powers in following some such policy because, as we all know, the Russians quite blatantly favoured the Communist Party in their zone, and I think it is fair to say that the Americans in theirs


also did perhaps what they could to smooth the path of the C.D.U. or C.S.U."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 31st July, 1952; 504, c. 1845.]
I am not personally injured by the statement, but it is a matter which should be cleared up because I am sure that the hon. Member could produce no evidence for the allegation. It is not for me to answer for the Americans, but certainly, so far as our own Administration is concerned, I think that if this statement is allowed to go unchallenged it could be misinterpreted and used to the disadvantage of the integrity of the British administration in Germany and elsewhere.

Mr. Vane: The hon. Member was courteous enough to tell me that he wished to raise this point. What I said last night was very close to what I have said many times before in debates on Germany during the days when he was responsible. Many of my hon. Friends on this side of the House made speeches roughly to the same effect. I do not want to follow the precedent of yesterday and make a 40-minute speech from the back benches, but I should like to remind the hon. Gentleman of our criticism in those days.
I have still in mind the industrial and agricultural policy and the result of putting enormous numbers of civil servants, n.c.os. and officers of the Army under disabilities for far longer than they need have been. I think that he would agree, too, that great insistence on the restarting of German trade unions was a matter pursued perhaps with greater enthusiasm than otherwise it may have been because he thought that the majority of them would not be opposed to Socialism. He will remember the feting and entertainment of Dr. Schumacher in this country very soon after the end of the war. There are many other considerations. I think that that justifies the extract which the hon. Gentleman has quoted.

Mr. Speaker: This is a matter for debate, but it cannot be allowed to proceed too far.

12.8 p.m.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Anthony Nutting): Perhaps I might be allowed to intervene at this stage to deal with some of the points which have been raised. Up to now the debate has followed a pattern to which we have become increasingly accustomed

in foreign affairs debates during the last few months, with a sharp and seemingly unbridgeable division between the Right and the Left wings of the party opposite, with the Front Bench trying somehow to hold an uneasy balance between them.
Up to now only one speaker from the benches opposite has really supported the Opposition Amendment moved by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell), and that was the right hon. Gentleman himself. I thought at the time that it might be a little rash of him to claim, as he did, that he was about to speak officially on behalf of the Labour Party. Even he seemed ill at ease and did not appear to have his heart exactly in the job. Perhaps that is not to be wondered at, for we know the views which the right hon. Gentleman holds on this subject and which have been made only too apparent at Question time.
If the Opposition will forgive my saying so, the Amendment which they asked the right hon. Gentleman to move is indeed a most curious pronouncement. It accepts:
…the aim of the inclusion of a democratic Germany on a basis of equality, in a continental European community.
It accepts, too:
…the principle…of a German armed contribution to an international system of collective security…
Indeed, it could hardly do otherwise, since these were the policies if not the actual phrases to which Her Majesty's Opposition, when they were in power, set their hand and helped to initiate. But the Amendment goes on to say that this is not the moment to go forward with these policies:
…at a time when attempts are still being made by the Western Powers to discuss the German problem with the Union of Soviet Socialist Republic…
I say straight away that I am glad to see that, at any rate, the Opposition Amendment acknowledges that we are making attempts to discuss matters with the Soviet Union.
Speakers from below the Gangway in particular, and the right hon. Gentleman himself, have accused us of being pretty well everything from lukewarm to frigid in our attitude on this question. Indeed, the right hon. Gentleman repeated yesterday that we must put the Soviet offer to the test. Even the hon. Gentleman the


Member for Attercliffe (Mr. J. Hynd), in a speech with which I otherwise agreed, called our replies to Russia about Germany rather cold and evasive.
Let me deal with the question. First let us remember that the initiative in these matters is with the West. It is we who are making the proposals, and the ball is now at the feet of the Russians. Let me remind the House of what we have said in our recent Notes. The first Western proposal was made in the Note of 13th May, and in that Note we said, "Let us agree to set up a Commission to investigate whether there is a possibility of free all-German elections." This is the Note of 13th May, and we expressed a preference for a United Nations Commission, which was natural, because there was in existence a United Nations Commission, which had been set up as a result of the Paris meeting of the United Nations. We suggested that we should meet together with the Russians after the Commission had reported.
The reply we got from the Russians to that was merely a repetition, so far as that aspect of the matter was concerned, of the proposal for an immediate meeting. Our reaction to that—and I really do not think that anybody can call it luke-warm, still less frigid—was, "All right; if the Russians will not write to us, if they do not want to go on writing letters, perhaps they will talk." It was because that was our feeling that the three Western Powers sent their Note of 10th July to the Soviet Government. Let me quote from that Note. We said this:
In order to avoid further delay, H.M. Government, in concert with the French Government and the United States Government…propose that there should be an early meeting of representatives of the four Governments, provided it is understood that the four Governments are in favour of free elections throughout Germany…and of the participation of a free all-German Government in the negotiations on the Peace Treaty. The purpose of this meeting would be to reach agreement on the first question which must be settled if further progress is to be made; namely, the composition and the functions of the Commission of Investigation to determine whether the conditions necessary for free elections exist.
The Note goes on to deal with the specific agenda for this proposed conference, and it ends in this way:
In order that free elections can be held, it will also be necessary to reach agreement on

the programme for the formation of an all-German Government, as proposed in paragraph 11 (iv) of H.M. Government's Note of 13th May. H.M. Government, therefore, repeat their proposal for the discussion of these further important issues by representatives of the four Powers. When such agreement is reached, it will then be possible to proceed to the unification of Germany.
Can any fair-minded critic really say that we have not been forthcoming, that we were shirking or evading a conference in face of the actual words which I have quoted? Can anyone suggest, as did the hon. Member for Coventry, East (Mr. Crossman), that in this or any other words of our Notes, we are making impossible conditions for the Soviet Union, and, indeed, as the hon. Gentleman said, demanding, as a pre-requisite to the conference, the integration of Germany into the Atlantic bloc?

Mr. Sydney Silverman: This is a very important point. The hon. Gentleman has referred to the reply to the original Russian proposal, which was to have an immediate meeting of the four Powers to organise free elections in Germany. Is not the difference between the two sides of the House at this moment the difference between the Russians and their friends, who are proposing that the Powers should discuss how to hold free elections, and ourselves, since we are suggesting that we should have a meeting on a much lower level, not to organise the elections, but to find out whether there are conditions in which free elections could be held? Is it not very natural that that should be regarded in many quarters as being merely a delaying device?

Mr. Nutting: No, Sir; there is absolutely no truth whatever in the statement made by the bon. Gentleman. [Interruption.] Well, at any rate, in the latter part of it.
In the first place, we have never specified at what level these conversations should be held. That is a matter which has been left open. As regards the other part of the hon. Gentleman's intervention, I can only remind him that we must devise some means whereby we can ascertain whether the conditions for free elections exist. If the hon. Gentleman is satisfied, without going to have a look at the place, that the conditions for free elections exist in Eastern Germany, we are not, and we want to make certain that


these conditions can be brought into effect, and that is the purpose of this meeting which we have proposed to the Soviet Government.
Let me now deal with the suggestion in the Amendment that we should hold up ratification until the talks with the Russians have either succeeded or failed. I am bound to say that, coming from a party which has endured, when it was in Government, so many bitter experiences in negotiations with the Russians, I find this doctrine astounding. Have the party opposite forgotten the Palais Rose? I am sure that my predecessor has not, if they have. Have they no recollection of the years of frustration which followed Potsdam, and, if their memories are so short, do they not remember the remarkable account given by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby, South (Mr. Noel-Baker), in the debate on 14th May last, of the history of Soviet reactions to Western policies on Germany in the last 15 months?

Mr. Ernest Davies: I am getting a little tired of the Palais Rose being referred to and compared with the proposal for talks on Germany. The hon. Gentleman will recall that the Palais Rose was endeavouring to reach an agreement on an agenda covering a very wide field indeed, whereas the suggestion of these four-Power talks is simply related to the specific point of arranging free elections in Germany.

Mr. Nutting: I do not think there is any difference between the hon. Member and myself. I am not comparing the Palais Rose with the conference about to take place. Indeed, I could not do so, because it has not yet taken place. All I am saying is that I do not want another Palais Rose. That is the attitude which Her Majesty's Government take.
Do not the party opposite remember how the Russians, for instance, completely ignored the proposals which they made when they were in Government, together with the French and United States Governments, first in September, 1950, and later in May, 1951, that measures should be taken to bring about the political and economic union of Germany, and to create an all-German Government by means of free elections? Do they not remember that, each time thereafter, when they decided that the West

must go ahead and take steps to consolidate its strength and unity, from that moment, as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby, South told us in the debate in May last, the Soviet Union began, gradually at any rate, to appear more and not less forthcoming?
What conclusions are we to draw from all this? Let me remind the House of what the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby, South said himself, and which was repeated again yesterday by the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget):
Surely they show one thing with dazzling clarity; that E.D.C. and E.D.C. alone, at every stage has led the Soviet Union to change their policy, and to propose the union of Germany today."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th May, 1952; Vol. 500, c. 1574.]
The right hon. Gentleman did not appear to consider E.D.C. a "perilous adventure," as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Easington called it yesterday, which would make agreement with the Russians more difficult to achieve.
He went on to say:
Having said that, I go on to say with equal emphasis that we should make a grave mistake if we let that history prevent us from taking the Russian Note very seriously indeed. We must find out if the Russians really mean what they have said. We must make a genuine, honest attempt to work with them if they show signs of wanting to work with us."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th May, 1952; Vol. 500, c. 1574–5.]
I apologise if I have wearied the House with these quotations, but the fact of the matter is that right hon. Gentlemen opposite have so often and with so much clarity gone out of their way to prove the case of the Government and to build up a case against their own Amendment. No words of mine could answer more effectively the speech of the hon. Member for Coventry, East (Mr. Crossman) or express more precisely the position and policy of Her Majesty's Government than those which I have quoted.
We are putting the Soviets to the test. We have offered a conference, but we believe that we must meanwhile go ahead with the policies upon which we have embarked, for on them and on their early fruition depends our best hope of holding profitable negotiations with the Soviet Union.
The hon. Member for Coventry, East produced an argument yesterday which I


must say was astonishing even for him. He said that we should use the threat to re-arm Germany as a negotiating weapon, but that we should only keep it as a threat. We must not take any steps which might in any way suggest that we are prepared to carry that idea through.
The hon. Gentlemen's ideas of how to conduct diplomatic negotiations are pathetic in the extreme. If he had any knowledge whatsoever of negotiation, and especially of negotiation with the Soviets, he would know that such a weapon as he wants would be nothing but a boomerang. The truth is—and we know it very well because we have had it from his own pen—that he wants to see the E.D.C. killed altogether. In an article in the "New Statesman and Nation" of 3rd May, the hon. Gentleman said:
If the time-table breaks down this summer, the European Defence Community will be as dead as a door nail, and no one will attempt to try to resurrect it.
If that is not an indication of the hon. Gentleman's own mind, I do not know what is. Nothing could be more clear than that. We are told that the party opposite agree with us that we must try to settle the problems of the divided world by negotiation and not by force. If that is so, they must make up their minds whether these negotiations shall be from a basis of weakness or of strength. Surely we have learned in this country the bitter lesson of what negotiation from weakness means, the ghastly alternatives of capitulation or war. Our purpose, therefore, is to negotiate from strength.
The Opposition Amendment, if carried, would seriously—perhaps—fatally weaken the negotiating position of the West, and would lead to greater rather than less intransigence by the Soviets. It could only lead to delay in that essential process of knitting together the grand design of European strength and unity upon which, as the right hon. Member for Derby, South so rightly said, depends our only chance of influencing Soviet policy.

Mr. E. Shinwell: I am doing my best to understand the hon. Gentleman. Am I to understand his argument to mean that without German

assistance we cannot build up that condition of strength? Is that what he is saying, because I should like to know?

Mr. Nutting: I should have thought that was the position not only of this Government, but of the Government of which the right hon. Gentleman was a Member. In that case, what was the right hon. Gentleman's speech about yesterday? In that case no single hon. Member could apprehend what he was driving at. His whole purpose yesterday was to say that we were driven into this position because N.A.T.O. had not enough forces.

Mr. Shinwell: That is nothing new. I have said it in this House over and over again. I have said it when I was Minister of Defence, I have said on the public platform and I repeated it yesterday. Why do not we build up the strength of N.A.T.O.? That is what I ask the Government to direct their attention to. If the existing N.A.T.O. countries in the West are provided with adequate forces, and, in particular with adequate weapons, then obviously in that measure we do not require German assistance.

Mr. Nutting: The exercise upon which we are engaged is precisely to build up the strength of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, and, therefore, in that case there is nothing between the right hon. Gentleman and myself. I am sorry, if we agree, that we appear so unable to persuade ourselves why we do.
I shall now deal with the last part of the Amendment. Dealing with the last part about the Attlee conditions—I hope the right hon. Member for Easington will not go away, because I have one more thing to say about it—I thought the right hon. Gentleman was really in a hopeless fix. He knew perfectly well, of course, as the hon. Member for Woolwich, East (Mr. Mayhew) showed in his own speech, that the Attlee conditions had, in fact, been fulfilled. Therefore, he had to fall back on a modest measure of distortion, if I may put it that way.
Let me read to the House what were, in fact, the first and second Attlee conditions as stated by the Leader a the Opposition when he was Prime Minister. The right hon. Gentleman said:
There is, first of all, the provision of arms. Obviously, the re-armament of the countries of the Atlantic Treaty must precede that of


Germany. Second, I think the building up of Forces in the democratic States should precede the creation of German forces."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 12th February, 1951; Vol. 484, c. 67.]
That was not what the right hon. Gentleman said yesterday. He said:
What were the Attlee conditions? First, that the other countries in Europe associated with N.A.T.O. should be adequately armed."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 31st July. 1952; Vol. 504, c. 1737.]
That was the way he put it. I submit to the House that that is a completely different proposition.

Mr. Shinwell: Just brevity.

Mr. Nutting: The right hon. Gentleman's idea of brevity is very strange, because he then went on to say that in his view the only way in which this condition could be fulfilled, would be if the French had 12 to 15 divisions before the Germans even started rearming.

Mr. Shinwell: I was using the argument based on the statements made to me and to other Defence Ministers by M. Pleven, in the first place, and by M. Moch in the second place. They made promises over and over again about 15 divisions in 1951, then reduced it to 12 divisions in 1952. What I pointed out was that we only had five French divisions.

Mr. Nutting: All I am saying is that the Leader of the Opposition when he was Prime Minister said nothing of that. He merely said, as I have quoted from the record, that the re-armament of the countries of the Atlantic Treaty must precede that of Germany. I consider that to be quite different from what the right hon. Gentleman said.

Mr. Shinwell: Is that all the hon. Gentleman wanted me for?

Mr. Nutting: Yes. It has been suggested that the signing of the contract will, if it has not already done so, make the division of Germany final, and that therefore the West is to blame. I do not accept that for one moment. In the first place, those who hold this view ignore all that has been done by the Russians to prevent the Potsdam Agreement being carried out—the persistent refusal of the Russians to treat Germany as a single economic unit and their in-

sistence on drawing reparations out of current production. But, more than that they completely ignore that not only in the economic field, but also militarily and politically, the Communists, step by step, have deliberately over the last four years or more been turning Eastern Germany into a satellite state of the Communist empire.
All the measures of repression which they have taken to the build-up of the Government in Eastern Germany to which the hon. Member for Windsor (Mr. Mott-Radclyffe) referred yesterday, are just part of a long, carefully worked out plan to absorb Eastern Germany into the Soviet system. If some hon. Members are gullible enough to believe that all this which has taken place in Eastern Germany, to which my right hon. Friend referred yesterday, results from the Bonn Agreement, then all I can say is that the people of Eastern Germany are not in agreement with them.
The more the Soviets seal off their zonal boundary against the West, the more they communise the economic and political system of Eastern Germany, the more they expand the Eastern Germany Army, the more they ape the Hitler youth brigades with their so-called Free German Youth movement—the more the people of Eastern Germany are coming to realise that their only hope of lifting this "black night of Communism" from their land lies in the re-creation in Western Germany, by means of the German Contract and the European Defence Community, of the necessary basis of strength from which to negotiate their ultimate reunion in freedom. They know—if hon. Members opposite are unaware—that Germany could be reunited tomorrow in a Soviet concentration camp. But neither they nor their Western German brothers nor any of the Western Powers are prepared to contemplate for one moment a solution on these lines.
A lot has been said in this debate about the European Defence Community from the point of view of a German contribution to Western defence. I suggest that it is important also to look at this new development, as did the hon. Member for Leeds, South-East (Mr. Healey), from the wider aspect—from the aspect of how it can help to further the growth of unity in Western Europe. The first step in the development of this unity was,


of course, the Schuman Plan for pooling the coal and steel resources of France. Germany, Italy and the Benelux countries. This imaginative project is now coming into force and the High Authority is being set up. Dealing, as it does, with the basic industries of Western Europe, the Coal and Steel Pool must render a signal service to the closer union of the industry and economy of Western Europe.
But its purpose has always been more than purely economic and industrial. By making a practical start with the integration of these six countries' basic industries it has sown a powerful political seed. It has demonstrated that a fusion of economic power can best be achieved between these six countries by a political act of far-reaching importance—the surrender in a vital industrial field of national sovereignty. And so the Schuman Plan has paved the way for the further initiative of the European Defence Community.
My right hon. Friend dealt fully yesterday with the structure and organisation of the E.D.C. I shall not add to what he said about that except to answer my hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland (Mr. Vane) and to say that, of course, all the German contribution to Western defence will be within the European Defence Community. But when my right hon. Friend was describing yesterday how this structure is made up, I could not help casting my mind back seven years to the end of the last war.
Anyone who, seven years ago, had prophesied that by 1952 German and French statesmen would have signed a treaty creating a European Army, which is to be under an international and supra-national Board of Commissioners, in which French units may be under German command and German under French, and which, together with the forces contributed by the other Powers, will share a common arms and supply programme and jointly administer common services and support—surely anyone prophesying this project would have been laughed to scorn.
Yet such a treaty has been signed and this revolutionary concept is already on the way to becoming a reality. I join with the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davies)

in paying tribute to the statesmanship of the leaders of France in bringing forward these far-sighted solutions to the age-old feuds of Western Europe. My hon. Friend the Member for Southport (Mr. Fleetwood-Hesketh), in his maiden speech, said yesterday that it gives an opportunity which Briand and Stresemann sought but never found.
Now, on top of all this, the six Governments are about to explore the possibilities of a European political authority which will co-ordinate the existing Communities and which may one day develop into a European federal government. What is our part in all this? My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary once said in Opposition that we in Britain cannot resign ourselves to the rôle of a mere spectator in so vital a matter as the future of Franco-German relations. That is still our position.
The late Government said in the Washington Declaration that they welcomed the Schuman Plan and the Paris Plan as an important contribution to strengthening the economy and defence of Western Europe and proclaimed their desire to establish the closest possible association with them at all stages of their development. We support all those aspirations to the full. But we have done more than that and ever since we have been in power we have sought to put them into practical effect. I think that we are succeeding.
The links which we have established with the European Community are of various kinds. First, there is the permanent delegation which we will have to the seat of the High Authority for the Schuman Pool. Then there are the links with the E.D.C. Treaty providing mutual guarantees of automatic military aid in the event of an attack in Europe; and arrangements for British forces to operate and train with E.D.C. forces and to be linked in such matters as administration and supplies, and there is the N.A.T.O.E.D.C. Protocol to which we are party, and arrangements for joint consultations between Councils of N.A.T.O. and E.D.C.
But important, indeed essential, as are these technical, military and diplomatic links, we wish our association with the European Community to be extended to other planes. That is the object of the Eden plan for the future of the Council


of Europe. That is why we have proposed that the Council of Europe shall have what I might call a double incarnation.
In addition to its present function as a purely consultative body we proposed that it should provide the institutions for both the Committee of Ministers and the Parliamentary Assembly of the Schuman Pool and the European Defence Community when it is set up. By this means, and by reason of our membership of the Council of Europe, we shall be able, provided the six Powers agree, to be associated in the discussions of the Committee of Ministers and the Parliamentary Assembly of these two European Communities. In this way we shall be able to bring our influence to bear on the counsels of these bodies.
So much for the existing institutions of the Schuman Pool and the European Defence Community. What of any future projects of a like shape and structure? What, in particular, of the proposed European political authority?

Mr. S. Silverman: What of the Test of us in this debate?

Mr. Nutting: I have seen it suggested in some quarters that the move to hurry on with the study of the European political authority spells doom for the Eden plan. The hon. Member for Leeds, South-East put this view yesterday. This is entirely wrong. It does no such thing; first, because there is no reason whatsoever to suppose that the six Powers want to go ahead with any project—the European political authority or anything else—without the closest association of Great Britain; and second, because our plan specifically envisages that further federal projects will develop in the future, and proposes that similar links at the Ministerial and Parliamentary levels should be established between them and Britain directly they come into effect.
Let it be clearly understood that while we cannot join a European federation, we welcome all these initiatives and will in no way seek to frustrate their development. As my right hon. Friend said in his opening speech, we make only one condition—that this development should be kept within the framework of the Council of Europe, in which this country plays a full part. This was the condition which I laid down at the recent meeting

of the Council of Europe at Strasbourg, when I introduced the British proposals to the Consultative Assembly.
I think that all my hon. Friends on both sides of the House—I feel that I can call them that because, whatever their position in this debate, on that occasion we all worked together on a bi-partisan basis—were heartened by the fact that the British proposals were endorsed by the Assembly by 99 votes to nil.
I am sure, also, that they would agree that the atmosphere of this last meeting was a real change and a real encouragement for the future. Britain was once again leading Europe. The initiative which we have taken in this wider European sphere shows that we are conscious of our duty towards Europe, that we shall discharge to the full the responsibilities that fall upon us, to help and to further the new and growing unity of Europe. We believe that to be a step towards peace. We ask the House to support us in this task.

12.41 p.m.

Mr. F. J. Bellenger: I suppose it is only inevitable that Government supporters should take an opportunity of emphasising the obvious differences which exist on this subject on these benches. It would be farcical—it would not be honest —to disguise those differences. The speeches which have been made show to what extent those differences go, and I can only hope that on both sides of the House hon. Members in listening to the speeches which are made on these benches, either from one point of view or from another, will believe that they are animated not only by sincerity but by a desire to achieve peace, which is not the prerogative of any group of Members in this House.
I can well understand my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) putting his Amendment on the Order Paper, and I could, in certain circumstances, support his point of view entirely; but because I do not think that his Amendment has any degree of possibility in the world in which we live today, I am reluctantly forced to take a point of view which I think most of us would never have contemplated, at any rate during the war or immediately after the war, but which seems to me to offer


the only possibly practical way of maintaining peace in Europe, for a reasonable length of time.
I shall endeavour to give to the House reasons why I believe that ratification of these treaties is inevitable and desirable as soon as possible. First of all, let me remind the House that on 9th July, 1951, there was issued from the Privy Council Office this declaration:
It is notified that the formal state of war with Germany is terminated as from 4 o'clock p.m. today, the 9th July, 1951.
That was after nearly 12 years of a state of warfare between this country and our allies and Germany. What succeeds that declaration? Obviously, if we terminate war we must get into a state of peace, and we are not in a state of peace with Germany today.
Germany today is occupied and to a large extent controlled by the occupying Powers under an occupation statute. I should have thought that my hon. Friends on these benches would have been the first to desire that the people of Germany, the millions of trade unionists and Social Democrats with whom we have so much in common, should be free at last to live their own national life in their own way with the minimum of restrictions so long as their way is the democratic way of life.
After the First World War we had the Treaty of Versailles, and even that Treaty allowed Germany an army, but, I believe, no air force and no navy. At any rate, they were allowed 100,000 men. Let us never forget that what we are discussing today is not entirely the rearmament of Germany but the contractual agreements which give to Germany a good deal of sovereignty—something which I should have thought my hon. Friends, with their differing opinions, would have wanted. If one falls the other falls, and what takes their place?—nothing except the present Occupation Statute under which Germany is contributing large sums for British and other occupying forces.
After the Treaty of Versailles, which the Germans ever after called the Versailles diktat, and which, incidentally, laid the foundations for Hitler to reach the position he did what did Germany

do? In 1922 the leading classes in Germany entered into a treaty with Russia—the so-called Rapallo Treaty. From that date they started preparations for the Second World War with the connivance and the collusion of the Russians. When we are listening to plausible speeches like that which my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, East (Mr. Crossman) made yesterday, it is very necessary to consider a little of the past history as well as what he considers to be the future history.
I maintain that Russia's policy has been consistent and will be consistent as regards Germany, whatever we try to do. Of what does that policy consist? The rulers of Russia will never allow Germany, East or West, divided or united, if they can possibly help it, to unite with the democratic nations. That is the first thing that we have got to keep in mind when we are considering the negotiations, which I agree should undoubtedly go on with Russia concurrently with the ratification of these treaties. Now we come to 1939. In 1939 the agreement made between two dictators, Stalin and Hitler, precipitated the Second World War.

Mr. S. Silverman: Do not forget 1938.

Mr. Bellenger: Of course, we had Munich. I want to say as little as I can about the party opposite, because I also believe—and this is the force of my argument—that because they went in for a policy of appeasement, as is apparently being suggested by some of my hon. Friends today, we also contributed to the Second World War, but not to the same extent that Hitler and Stalin did with that agreement which, never let us forget, was a horse deal if ever there was one—cutting up Poland, sharing out the spoils, taking the Baltic States, all in a secret protocol.

Mr. Silverman: The purpose of my intervention was not to assist my right hon. Friend to re-write history but only to point out to him, as I am sure he will agree, that it is a little unfair to blame what he calls the two dictators for doing together what the democratic nations had done with Hitler only the year before. The partition of Poland, bad as it may have been, was surely no worse than the partition of Czechoslovakia in the Four Power Pact at Munich.

Mr. Bellenger: That only shows how points of view differ, and I am bound to tell my hon. Friend that if that is his reading of history we are diametrically opposed.

Mr. Silverman: My right hon. Friend is not diametrically opposed to hon. Members opposite.

Mr. Bellenger: In matters of this importance, involving the question of war or peace, because I happen to sit on the opposite side of the House I do not see why I should take a point of view which I believe to be wrong. I hope that even in these days we should allow a little latitude to hon. Members in this House, and I am bound to say that considerable latitude is given to my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman).

Mr. Silverman: Not given—taken.

Mr. Bellenger: I also presume to take it, with or without my hon. Friend's permission—I do not mind. Russia's policy is consistent today.
I mention these historical facts in order to destroy the illusions to which my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, East gave expression yesterday. I say straight away that, in order to try to convince public opinion here and in Germany, we must try to get Russia to the conference table and, if possible, to get agreement; but when we go into a conference of that nature we must know what we want. Unless we do know what we want, negotiations of that kind will drag on and on and the position at the end will be far worse than it is at the present moment, grave as it may be.
I was interested to note that my right hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) said yesterday, without any qualification whatever:
I say on behalf of the Opposition that we should not agree to prolonging such talks"—
with Soviet Russia—
if they go beyond a reasonable time. There must be a limit; they must not be unduly prolonged."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 31st July, 1952; Vol. 504, c. 1741.]
I entirely agree with him. I only wish that he had given some indication of what that limit should be.
In considering the arrangements in the European Defence Community we should ask ourselves why we should subscribe

to these agreements, as we have done, because Her Majesty's Government have appended their signature to them. Is it not because we think that our democratic way of life is threatened? After all, what is the whole purpose of our re-armament unless it is to protect our way of life and the liberties and privileges that we have attained through centuries and which seem to us to be threatened? If it is the case that our re-armament is for the purpose of defence alone, how much more necessary is it that on the Continent, in the front line, that defence shall be just as strong as ours? Even my right hon. Friend the Member for Easington is constantly telling us that defence on the Continent is weak.
I have always understood that the Labour Party, of all parties, stood for collective and not selective security. If collective security for the purpose of the Covenant of the League of Nations or the Charter of the United Nations Organisation means anything at all, it means the uniting of all democratic forces to stand against the threat of aggression from wherever it comes. Obviously the German nation has to agree first, and that will be the test whether or not they believe in democracy. Our agreement or act of ratification only becomes operative when the other nations, including Germany, agree, and if they do—I agree that it is speculative, but so is the whole of life, as I see it—I think that we have a better chance of helping towards peace in Europe, which, in turn, may be extended to other parts of the world.
I am glad that the official Opposition Amendment recognises that fact and only differs in one respect from the Government's Motion. Whatever speeches have been made here, whether they come from below or above the Gangway—except in regard to my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, East; and it is sometimes difficult to break through the supersonic barrier of his mind to see what he really does believe—there is complete agreement on these benches that the Government are right in initialling these Treaties. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Very well. Two of my hon. Friends, whose opinions I respect—

Mr. James Hudson: The hon. Member ignores our opinions nine-tenths of the time.

Mr. Bellenger: I am not ignoring them now, and they have reminded me if I were in danger of doing so. My two hon. Friends—whose opinions I respect and which spring from a different source from that of the majority of opinions in the party to which they and I belong—are pure pacifist—

Mr. John Paton: No; we are the opposite.

Mr. Bellenger: I do not know what is the opposite of a pure pacifist. Perhaps one or both my hon. Friends will tell me if they are fortunate enough to catch the eye of the Chair.

Mr. Paton: If the hon. Member will sit down we will try.

Mr. Bellenger: If they are realists as well as idealists they must agree—as I should not be at all surprised to know that they did agree during the war, either by open expression of their thoughts or by passive acquiescence, that we were right in fighting Hitler to try to avoid aggression—that if we are to stop aggression, which, if it has not already occurred, is very near in Eastern Germany, it is only logical that we must take steps that are not purely pacifist. We should not lie down in front of the juggernaut which is rolling on. That is why most of us on these benches support re-armament and why most of us support the re-armament of Germany, even though some hon. Members may qualify their support, as they have done today.
I think it was my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, East who asked about finance and the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs who attempted to answer him. I wonder whether either of them were right in their question or answer. Let us be quite frank. There are a considerable number of British troops in Germany. They have always been paid from British funds borne on the Service Estimates, so whatever happens to these troops the British taxpayer will still continue to pay for them. It is true that a large proportion of their expenses in Germany in relation to billeting and so forth are paid out of the Germany economy, under an occupation statute imposed by right of conquest and nothing else.
That was the case with the Indian Army, in the days when we controlled

India, but I well recollect many of my hon. Friends saying that that should stop. They said it was unfair to impose military expenditure on the Indian people in order to maintain the Indian Army. Why, therefore, should we expect the Germans, before or even after ratification, to contribute to the British forces? I do not think they will, but if that is the argument where is there any equity, if we really believe in being at peace with the German people?
We do not say anything of the kind, and what the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs and the House must envisage is that even if we take away these divisions tomorrow they will still cost the British taxpayer the same amount of money as they will cost after these treaties are ratified, except in so far as we can induce the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation—and that means the United States of America—to pour more money into the pool in order to contribute towards our defence forces.
Unless we really believe in reparations —and how many of my hon. Friends do —we ought to say that the time has arrived when the cost of British troops, which are in Germany not for our defence alone but as part of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, should be borne in the same way as that of the other members of E.D.C. or the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation. It may cost us more, but it will be for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to tell us how much this country can afford in defence. I think that is the fairest and, indeed, the only way of looking at this financial consideration.
Let me now come to our Amendment. I only wish that I could support it, but I am not going to support anything which is merely a compromise in order to achieve face saving, and we know that the reason this Amendment is on the Order paper is in order to try to arrive at some compromise between two opposing points of view. Well, if that is the way we are going to conduct international relations, meaning so much to this country and to the people that elect us, then the sooner we stop playing this unreal game the better. I remember so well before the war Munich, Spain and the rest of it, when continual wrangling was going on between both sides of the House. What happened? We came to


war partly because both sides of the House could not agree. Then, when we came to war, what happened? Both sides of the House joined in a coalition to carry on the war.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Did not both sides agree to unconditional surrender, which makes the next war inevitable?

Mr. Bellenger: I do not know whether it makes the next war inevitable, but I agree that both sides did agree to unconditional surrender, and let me tell my hon. Friend that some of us had considerable doubts about that in those days and gave expression to it in this House.

Mr. W. G. Bennett: Mr. W. G. Bennett (Glasgow, Woodside) Was it not Russia who insisted on it first of all?

Mr. Hughes: Nonsense.

Mr. Bellenger: I do not want to diverge too much, otherwise it would make my speech more lengthy.
I want to deal with only one or two further points. I was on the question of the Opposition Amendment. It is very difficult to say what the late Mr. Ernest Bevin would have done if he had been alive it is very difficult to say what a Labour Government would have done if they had been in power; but if words mean anything—and they must mean something—the document signed by the then Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, my right hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. H. Morrison), is plain beyond peradventure. There it is, for all to read, and in that document the three Foreign Ministers, including a Labour Foreign Minister, signed their hand to this statement:
The Foreign Ministers have now instructed the High Commission to proceed to negotiations with the Federal Government which will, it is hoped, culminate in early agreements between the four Governments to enter into effect together with the agreement for German participation in Western defence through the proposed European Defence Community, whose forces would form part of the joint defence forces under the North Atlantic Supreme Command.
We initiated that policy, and if the Government are carrying on that policy are we going to condemn them merely because of so-called bi-partisanship? Hon. Members will have noted that in

America they are proceeding to the Presidential election, and both the Democratic candidate and the Republican candidate are carrying out, if words mean anything at all, a bi-partisan foreign policy. When in a time of election in America, with all the pressure that is being exercised by all sorts of groups in all sorts of ways, both candidates for election can agree on a bi-partisan foreign policy because they believe their country is so vitally interested, surely we in the British House of Commons cannot do less.
Therefore, because I believe that what the Labour Government put their hands to when they were in office is what the present Government have merely carried on and brought to fruition—because that is what the ratification of this agreement will mean; that will be the last step before those treaties come into operation —because they are doing that, and because I believe in honesty in politicsoccasionally—I regret that I shall not be able to support the Opposition Amendment this afternoon.

1.5 p.m.

Mr. F. M. Bennett: I hope the right hon. Member for Basset-law (Mr. Bellenger) will not think that if I do not comment at length on his speech it is because I am in disagreement with it. It is, in fact, for precisely the contrary reason. Throughout the two days of this debate there have been many claims on the benches opposite to speak as heir of the late Mr. Ernest Bevin, but I think many of us, certainly on this side, and, I think, throughout the House, would agree that if there is one individual whose speech is a direct outflow from Mr. Ernest Bevin's policy it is that of the right hon. Member for Bassetlaw.
At the opening of this debate yesterday the right hon. Member for Easing-ton (Mr. Shinwell) claimed that he was fortunate enough on this occasion to be speaking for a united front within his party, and he warned us on these benches against trying to exploit any non-existent differences. I do not intend to do so, partly for the reason that I feel the situation is sufficiently serious without going into that too deeply; and secondly because, after the speeches we have heard, in such very divergent fashions, from hon. Members opposite it would indeed he a case of gilding the lily.
In so far, however, as it is possible to extract anything concrete from the Opposition as to why they have put down this Amendment—this face-saving tactic, as it has been alluded to—it does seem that there are perhaps two propositions which are worth a slight amount of examination.
The first is that we should insist on new elections in Germany because the present Government there have no mandate to enter into these defensive arrangements and to re-arm. I think that has flowed more or less throughout the debate—the need for new elections because of the lack of a Government mandate. That is an astonishing constitutional doctrine. The Labour Government were elected first in 1945, and although I took part, unsuccessfully, in that election on leave from the Army I have not the slightest recollection of the Labour Party mentioning the word "re-armament" at that time, or defensive pacts against the Soviet Union, or entering into any defensive arrangements at all.
When they were elected I do not believe they could for a moment have claimed that they had a mandate for any of the items in these fields which followed. Indeed, in those day of "Left calls to Left" it would have been the wildest heresy on any Labour political platform to have even suggested that the time might come when the Atlantic Pact and defensive arrangements against the U.S.S.R. would be necessary.
Yet, with no mandate we got the Brussels Pact in 1947, in 1949 the Atlantic Pact, and concurrently with it the announcement to this country that we needed to re-arm on a substantial scale. The Government had no mandate for those, but I do not remember any suggestion in this House or elsewhere that before entering into those arrangements it was the constitutional duty of the Government, as they had not got a mandate, to go to the country first and get one.
It is perhaps worth reflecting what would have been the sentiments expressed by the party opposite when they were in office if, for instance, the United States had, before agreeing to conclude the Atlantic Pact with us or to encourage our re-armament, insisted that the Labour Government should go to the country and get a mandate first. They would have regarded that, and rightly, as gross inter-

ference with our domestic constitutional rights. So much for the claim of the need for new elections.
The other point I should like to spend a few minutes examining is the claim that the timing is wrong, as mentioned in the Amendment, because of the particular effect it will have at a time when new talks with Soviet Russia may begin. The only time we have ever, in our experience —and I am sure the right hon. Member for Bassetlaw, who held office in the Labour Government would agree—found the Russians since the war in any mood of conciliation is when they have seen signs of our increasing firmness and our increasing strength. That goes for all dictators, whatever their political colour.
I therefore feel that the best possible way we have of achieving any sort of reasonable settlement with the Soviet Union is precisely that of pressing on with the arrangements outlined by the Joint Under-Secretary of State earlier today—not only with the re-armament of Germany, but with all the other international defensive arrangements going on—so that we can proceed on a basis of security and strength. Every bit of evidence that there is shows that that is the right way of getting a settlement with the Russians—not by appeasement. And that way of approach is common to right dealing with all dictatorships.
There is one aspect of the matter that has not been touched on—or touched on hardly at all—in this debate about Western German re-armament, during which some on the benches opposite have been protesting against it. We seem to have neglected the very substantial rearmament that has been going on for a long time in the Eastern zone of Germany. If it is right to say that at this time it is a misguided policy to support the re-armament of Germans because of the possibility of talks with the Russians, the Russians do not seem to think so, because while they have been approaching us with prospects of talks with us, re-armament in their zone has not stopped but gone on apace.
I do not want to keep the House, because I know that there are other hon. Gentlemen who want to speak in this debate, and so I am not going to quote at length the figures that I have obtained, but I think it is worth noting how steadily this re-armament in the Eastern zone of


Germany has gone on. Irrespective of party, this is a very serious matter, when we see there a national army daily growing bigger in the Eastern zone of Germany, and when there are here certain people who are decrying even the beginning of the formation of so few divisions in the West.
In May, 1949, according to official figures that could be quoted, there were in the Eastern zone military or paramilitary formations numbering 9,000 men; by September of the same year they numbered 42,000; by May, 1950, they numbered 50,000; by September, 1951, they had gone up to 60,040; and the latest reports now speak of no fewer than 70,000 well-armed soldiers, sailors and airmen equipped with the latest weapons of war.
Considering that there are only 17 million-odd Germans in the Eastern zone compared with 47 million or 48 million in the West, and considering that we are talking only, in a much bigger area, of 10 to 12 divisions, and that before we have even started to enlist the troops or even have ratified the agreements, and that they have already got now between six and seven divisions in that part of the country that is only one-third of the size of the whole of our zone, it seems that not only have they re-armed their zone of Germany, but have already re-armed it proportionately far more even than our plans envisage re-armament in ours.

Mr. James Carmichael: Would the hon. Gentleman kindly give the authority for the statement he has made regarding re-armament? Where do those figures come from?

Mr. Bennett: I think the best way to deal with the point—I am not trying to escape it, for I have the figures here with the authorities—is to show the figures to the hon. Gentleman afterwards. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Well, the reason I am suggesting that is, not that I am trying to evade the issue, but out of consideration for others who wish to speak. If I am driven to it, I am perfectly ready to quote the document and read out all the sources of the information, but that will not be so good for others who wish to speak, for it will take up time.
So far in this debate not a single hon. or right hon. Member opposite has been

able to find any single constructive reason why we should not ratify these agreements now, and we are forced to accept the suggestion made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bassetlaw himself that the Opposition Amendment has no substance in it in fact, and that it has been put down as a face-saver. That, in this House, we can all appreciate. We all understand that. But this debate in this House has significance abroad, and the Opposition Amendment has a certain significance in that sense, and it may be misinterpreted abroad.
Indeed, the hon. Gentleman the Member for Islington, East (Mr. E. Fletcher) last night actually expressed as a hope that the division of opinion shown in this debate, and any Division that may take place in the Lobbies tonight, would have the effect of preventing or delaying the Germans and the French from ratifying. He actually expressed that as a hope.
All I can say in regard to that is that I hope that the French and the Germans of their own free will will realise that what has been happening in this debate, and any Division that may occur, is not because of any great national difference of opinion about the right way for this country to act, but, as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Bellenger) said, is happening as a face saver, for a disunited and torn party.

1.14 p.m.

Mr. A. J. Irvine: There is, I think, still some misapprehension among hon. and right hon. Members on the other side in regard to the objections which are raised from this side of the House to ratification at this time. The Foreign Secretary yesterday said that the reason he criticised the Amendment was
… because it asks us to halt the work we are doing in the hope that we shall get these talks—in the hope that we shall get the Russians into these discussions."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 31st July, 1952; Vol. 504, c. 17181
That observation of the right hon. Gentleman seems to me to illustrate the misapprehensions that exist. What reason is there why the work to which the right hon. Gentleman referred should be halted at all by a decision not to ratify the Conventions at this early date?
There is no suggestion from this side of the House, no matter what variations


of opinion there may be, that there should be a halting of the process of the buildup of Western defence. We are concerned with the entirely different question of the timing of what is admittedly a technical matter—the process of ratification. We believe that ratification, for all that it is a formal and technical step, is one which should have been better timed to affect the whole diplomatic situation.
At present, as the Government are proceeding, there is no indication given to the House and to the country as to any possible effect that the timing of ratification may have upon the prospects of opening the four-Power talks or upon the development of Russian policy; but when we set out upon the process of re-armament we were told that the whole object of the exercise was not merely that we should build up our self-defence but that we should build up until we reached a position where we could negotiate from strength. It was thought, therefore, that, step by step, as the defence position of the Western Powers was strengthened, there would develop parallel to it a policy of probing and inquiring to discover how the Soviet Union was reacting to the defence policy of the Western Powers and whether there were any signs that talks could be commenced on a more hopeful footing than heretofore.
The real difficulty we are in now, in my judgment, is that we are building up our strength and nobody in the Government knows how to begin to negotiate. That seems to me to be the tragedy of the situation as we separate for the forthcoming Recess. Arms races, as we all know, possess their own diabolical impetus. They are a process that, once set in train, becomes extremely difficult to stop. They become difficult to stop for economic reasons, because of the dislocation that occurs. If we stop or reduce the arms process, possibly unemployment results.
Moreover, in the course of an arms race the sights are raised and new objectives are tagged on, so that we have from the United States, for example, a new statement of the objectives of Western policy, called "containment-plus." New objectives are tagged on to the original ones and proposals are made that steps should be taken to free the people now

under the subjection of the Soviet Union. We have heard them from hon. Members opposite in the course of the debate, as my hon. Friends remind me.
In my view, the task of statesmanship at the present time is to keep the original objective of our armaments programme and of Western defence in sight. That is why we should probe at every stage the possibility of getting results by negotiation. This very process of ratification should have been used as a bargaining counter in that connection, to see whether we could secure a reasonable basis for the talks. As far as I know, it has never been put to the U.S.S.R. in terms that if they will enter into talks upon such-and-such a basis, or according to such-and-such an agenda, then we in Britain will not proceed to ratification. No suggestion of that kind has been made and this important, although formal, matter of ratification has not been used in any way in connection with the main objective.
On the contrary, it has been rushed through unnecessarily early, and nothing in the handling of it is designed to bear upon the prospect of four-Power talks. If the process of the re-armament of Germany outpaces by too far the search for a basis of negotiation, then the prospect of negotiation will be destroyed; and, in the view of my hon. Friends, that is the great danger of this situation. The object of negotiation is to find German unity by peaceful means, and yet a consequence of what we are doing, a consequence of what is being done this afternoon, may be, in my belief, to perpetuate the division of Germany.
I am not one of those who think that the issues in this matter are other than extremely difficult to determine. I think that the issues are rather narrow which divide hon. Gentlemen at present, and one of the concessions which I make to hon. Members opposite is that I accept the force of their argument that if we develop Western defence upon the lines which they have enunciated, both in the Conventions and through E.D.C., we would achieve as a consequence one advantage of supreme importance.
The advantage which would be achieved is that the age-long enmity between Germany and France will at long last be brought to an end. That is what they say, and there is some force


in it. They say that the only answer to German militarism is in a European army, in an army in which the forces of Germany and of France are integrated and through which, as I say, at long last the enmity between these Powers is finally brought to an end in an integrated European force. That seems to me a very important argument. Incidentally, it is that aspect of the matter to which the so-called Attlee conditions have the most important relevance.
Why am I not, in the result, swayed by that argument? It is because I think there is an even more important objective than that which I have described—namely, the solution of the problem of Germany, the necessity of achieving German unity by peaceful means. If it be a fact that the objective of uniting Germany and France in an integrated force cannot De achieved in the existing situation at the same time as we achieve a united Germany, then I would permit the first objective to go in order that I might achieve the second. It is because I think that what right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite are doing at the present moment endangers the prospect of establishing German unity by peaceful means that I take my stand where I do on this matter.
I ask myself the question—because this is fundamental to the whole argument—is it true, in fact, that by proceeding at this rate with the Western build-up we are doing anything which will perpetuate the division of Germany? Because if that is not true, my whole argument falls. Reports certainly indicate that at any rate the Germans are convinced that this is so. This process of ratification, which is being carried through today is, according to the reports which one receives, regarded as a very grave step in relation to the prospects of achieving the peaceful union of Germany.
The "Manchester Guardian" in a despatch of 26th July, said as a fact what one would in any way have expected, that
The Germans fear that an internal frontier guarded on either side by German soldiers is more likely to be permanent than the kind of frontier that divides their country now.
Yesterday, "The Times" reported that the struggle between the East and the West of Germany was getting more bitter every day. The President of the East German Republic, Herr Pieck, has said, in terms which are sadly familiar, that

"strength is the only thing that Dr. Adenaeur and his American sponsors understand." Of course, Dr. Adenaeur is saying exactly the same thing, with a few alterations in words, and sending the message back.
All that is going on meanwhile, therefore, is accelerating and accentuating the danger of a divided Germany, and we have the prospect of a domestic arms race between the East of Germany, on the one hand, and the West of Germany, on the other hand—an arms race in which Eastern Germany, where they have been training their cadres for four years, will have the initial advantage. It was interesting to observe the other day that Mr. Walter Lippman said:
We are in the gravest danger of finding ourselves in a wholly untenable position—that of making our military and political plans contingent upon the perpetuation of a divided Germany.
That is the seriousness of the matter and if, by carrying through this ratification at this time, we are doing anything to make more likely or more inevitable the continued division of Germany, then the gravity of what we are doing this afternoon cannot be over-stated or overestimated. I wonder whether hon. Members fully realise how far this is written into the Conventions themselves. It is written into paragraph 3 of Article 7, where, as I understand the Convention, it is said that if eventually unification of Germany is achieved, then the Governments of the West will look to the united Germany to fulfil these very obligations now being entered into by the West German Federal Republic. How can that be regarded by the Government of the Soviet Union? Is it not the clearest indication that our intention is to force home our own objectives in Central Europe? What the House is being asked to do is to agree to something unnecessarily early which may perpetuate the division of Germany and render four-Power talks abortive.
The speed of the build-up all the time is only paralleled by the laggardness in the promotion of the four-Power talks. There is a widely held assumption that they are bound to fail. We hear it all the time. Pessimism and defeatism on that issue are rampant. What kind of basis is there for foreign policy if we proceed on the assumption that the talks


are bound to fail? I have myself no illusions about the difficulties. I think that the difficulties are very great indeed. But I say that the British people were first of all persuaded to participate in a great programme of re-armament on the basis that we were building up our strength in order to negotiate on terms of equality. If now, when all that sacrifice has been made and all that effort has been carried out, we are to be told, "The prospects of negotiations are non-existent," I say that we have been persuaded to re-arm under false pretences.
I also say to hon. Members that just because Russia has been intransigent since Yalta, it does not follow that she is going to be intransigent all the time. After all, seven years is a short period in the life of a nation. The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, speaking today in what struck me as tones of great pessimism, with his melancholy reference back to the Palais Rose, based his argument on the assumption that if we referred to the historical precedents there was no kind of prospect of successful negotiation. Was there ever a more melancholy prologue to international negotiations?

Mr. Nutting: I was not melancholy about the prospects at all. I do not accept that the negotiations may break down. I was merely saying that the chance of negotiations succeeding is much better if we go on with the policies which the late Government started and which we are carrying out.

Mr. Irvine: If I have induced some optimism in the mind of the hon. Gentleman, I have not spoken in vain. In fact, there is evidence the other way. The historical evidence is that Russia is capable of great shifts in foreign policy. That is how she works and that is how she moves. There was such a shift before the war when the dismissal of Litvinov took place. These great shifts of policy do occur. Certainly our foreign policy should be based on the assumption that Russia is capable of carrying out such a shift again. These shifts of policy by Russia only occur seldom in point of time and only occur when objectives of immense importance are thought to be in sight. But the point is that the avoidance of the integration of German forces with the West may be

—we do not know—just such an objective. I say that it is the Government's duty to probe the possibilities.
We cannot exclude the possibility that the appointment and the arrival of Mr. Gromyko in this country may be an indication that there is to be a different emphasis in Soviet policy. It is said by some hon. Gentlemen on the other side that the slight change in the Russian attitude that makes itself apparent is a consequence of the West showing increasing strength. I quite agree. But that is not a reason why we should postpone talking in terms of negotiation. The logic of that argument of hon. Members opposite is that we should build up our strength not to the point where we can negotiate from strength but to the point where we can enforce our will. That is not and never has been our objective.
We should take the initiative. All this talk about our being a second-rate Power is again part of the defeatism and pessimism that are constantly coming across the Floor from hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite. They are obsessed by the belief that we have become a second-rate Power. There is this prolonged delay in the despatch of Notes. Everything is referred back across the Atlantic before our position can be made clear. Speeches and statements made by the Minister of Defence are referred to General Omar Bradley. We have reached a sorry position when this constant referring back is regarded as a necessary feature of our diplomacy and we can give no lead of our own.
I should have thought that we still had enormous influence as a great Power and as the centre of a great Commonwealth. The Government do not think of exercising that influence as I see it. Their policy is simply one of doom. They have no hopes nor prospects in this at all. They have no promises, not even false ones; there is nothing to "ram down our throats" in foreign affairs. They are caught up in a remorseless process which appears to us to exclude the prospects of negotiations even from strength.
The plain truth is this: not only has the Conservative Party an outlook of doom and pessimism, but the whole country would have had such an outlook had not certain elements of the Labour Party been at work on this matter in recent months. That has been, as I believe, one


of the really important features of the situation. There has been in the Labour Party—and, after all, there is only a small majority dividing the House, and the view I am expressing is a view largely held by hon. Members in the Opposition—a developing determination that the original objective of our re-armament policy should be kept in mind. If that development within my party had not occurred the Opposition Amendment would not be in its present terms.
Our determination is that we should build up our strength in order to negotiate from strength, and that all the time we are building up our strength it is our obligation and duty to probe and inquire into what the prospects of negotiation are. A technical and formal matter like ratification should, we think, have been approached in that context and not steam-rollered through unnecessarily rapidly as if there was no other prospect than that of a steadily deteriorating situation; as if the only thing that it was possible to offer to the British people was another catastrophe.

1.40 p.m.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: Except for the concluding passages of the speech of the hon. Member for Edge Hill (Mr. Irvine), which caused some controversy and opposition on this side of the House, I believe that the House has listened to him with respect, as it usually does to does to his speeches on foreign affairs which, in my view at any rate, tend to enlighten our proceedings. I largely agree with the main theme of his statement to us this afternoon and shall hope to touch on some of the points he made in the course of my own remarks.
I am very glad to note the general trend of these foreign affairs debates, the continuity of bi-partisan foreign policy upon a slightly different basis—the emergence of more contributions of opposite effect from opposite parties. That is not a bad thing. The country as a whole is glad to see an occasional respite from our formal battles in this House, particularly on foreign policy, about which there are so many anxious thoughts and inquiring minds in the country. My experience of my constituents and the public generally is that they are pleased that that is the trend in Parliament.
We have had three contributions from hon. Members opposite who declared themselves in support of the Government on the issue of the re-armament of Germany and the conclusion of the contractual agreements. I think I am not going too far in saying that there are a small number of hon. Gentlemen on this side of the House, one or two of whom may still be called if there is time, who are more attuned to the thinking of the official Labour Opposition.
For my own part, I welcome this opportunity of explaining to the House and to my constituents why I must abstain from the Divisions which will follow this afternoon unless it be that we are to have a formal declaration from the Government at the end of the day that this is a vote of confidence and that a defeat of the Government will result in its resignation and a General Election, in which case the whole of the Government's home policy at the present time is called into question. As I am a warm supporter of the Government on their home policies, it would be with a heavy heart that I should vote with them on this issue and in those circumstances in the Lobby this afternoon.
I should like to make clear my reasons for this attitude. Without taking too long about it, I invite the House to accompany me in a short and I hope not too jerky ideological journey from the far side of the Atlantic through the N.A.T.O. countries and through Germany to the Iron Curtain. I do not think one can hope to have a comprehensive or complete view of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, which is the great power force in Europe today, unless one begins to look at it through the eyes of the United States. I should like, therefore, to attempt a brief and crude analysis of the United States policy towards Europe. It has, I think, three strands.
First of all, there is their suspicion of this hotch-potch of nationalities in Europe, their fear and resentment of the patchwork organisation of States breeding wars in which their soldiers have died, their dislike of the quota economies and high tariff walls, and the adverse comparison with the broad, expansive lands of the United States generating power and opportunity. For that reason we get the American view projected upon Europe, hoping that it will become, under the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation and


under the economic arrangements, a large and important territory equal in concepts to that of the United States. For this reason the United States has federal designs for Europe.
Secondly, there is the Marshall thesis, that potent mixture of humanitarianism and economic democracy, the Good Samaritan lifting up the prostrate form of European civilisation and the dollar advance guard marching out against industrial Communism. Thirdly, we have the military motive, the extension of the Monroe doctrine, the rebound from the post-1919 failure of Wilsonian self-determination for small nations but the retention of the other part of the Wilson case, the ideal of making the world safe for democracy, by kindness, yes, but by force now, too.
Thus, in the eyes of the United States, these N.A.T.O. countries become at once, freed of their feuds, a large area for trade and exchange, a forcing house for democracy and an instrument of military power. With the adhesion of Western Germany to E.D.C. —E.D.C. being but an appropriate tool of N.A.T.O.—the process is virtually completed, and we have to consider the impact of this upon ourselves and upon Eastern and Asiatic Europe.
Is Britain isolated by this United States thrust into Europe, or, alternatively, are we isolating ourselves by certain actions that we have taken, and are now taking, and, if so, how? We are members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, but we are not members of the industrial complex which is rapidly becoming the beating heart of N.A.T.O. We are only interested observers of the Schuman Plan.
Some hon. Members in all parts of the House have suggested in our debates on the Schuman Plan that we should throw ourselves into this organisation, but both Governments have so far been hesitant, and indeed, there are great reservations by those with technical knowledge, on this side of the House at any rate. They feel that to subject our iron and steel interests to partial control by foreigners would be a fatal act of policy. They feel that we should lose flexibility in production upon which we should depend completely for purposes of war. They feel that we might lose some of our habitual British markets in the Commonwealth.
But as things are now going in Europe, are we wise to stay out any longer, or should we go in and do something about this organisation? The Under-Secretary today told us that there was a hope of putting it under the Council of Europe, but my understanding of the speech of the hon. Member for Leeds, South-East (Mr. D. Healey) yesterday—he is considered to be an expert on this—is that that proposal was rejected forcibly by M. Spaak and others when it was made on the last occasion and that there is no guarantee at all that we shall work our will. Meanwhile, the process is going on. The High Authority is being constituted, and it is to be subject to a political organisation in Europe. Who will dominate this power citadel of the Ruhr-Lorraine when it has been created? Will it be Germany, or will it be France, or will it be a combination of both countries?
To go a little wider, what precisely is this United Europe that we are creating? Is the United States going to remain involved in it, or, having forwarded the whole enterprise under the conceptions that I sought to give at the beginning of my speech, will the United States retire and allow it to go on on its own, and if the United States goes and we are not there, what happens then? We have fought countless wars throughout history to prevent the domination of Europe by one Power or a combination of Powers. I see a danger emerging unless we enter this organisation for some purpose. Either France or Germany, or a combination of the two, will become master of this vast industrial pattern.
A United Europe has never emerged at any stage either in the processes of war itself or in the immediate aftermath of war. War and its immediate aftermath are the very times when the national and international will becomes manifest in new patterns and new forms of society. Is it really to be British policy in peace to go against the grand operation of mankind in its most exuberant phases and positively create now a pattern of Europe which never emerged in the war and never emerged immediately afterwards, a pattern which seems to be so inimical to British interests?
There is another facet to this. There is no doubt whatever that the American build-up of Western Germany is proceed.
ing apace. The position which we had under the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Dalton) is very much changed. He found that Germany was costing too much, £80 million a year I believe. Under his dispensation there was a quick climb down to about £4 million. Whether that is the figure at the moment I am not able to say, but it is something of that order.
Immediately after that came currency reform and the immense resurgence of modern industrial Western Germany. It is no secret at all that the United States is pouring loans, investments and Marshall Aid into Germany, and if the figures are examined—I have them here —it will be seen that in the last three or four years since currency reform Germany has added 25 per cent. to the index of real wages whereas in this country, despite everything we have done, we have been unable to add more than a fraction. Of course, the Germans started at a lower level, shattered as she was by the war, hut that is not the significant feature. The significant feature is the velocity of this process and where it is going to lead us in the future. A case can be made out for saying that the German economy has surpassed ours already and is in a more healthy and vibrant condition than our own.
At this point, again, we find ourselves isolated, politically and commercially. I do not want to be controversial, but we on this side of the House think we have had six years of a narrow island Socialism, nationalisation, the siege economy and an over-welfared State, things that confine our opportunities and hold us back from entering. Europe and securing supremacy in it.
Now, I regret to say, we have had nine months of bureaucratic Conservatism, exchange control, cuts in imports and retaliatory export reductions. The Americans pass us by. The good Samaritan is now the Levite. They passed us by originally in amazement, now only with a shrug. Make no mistake about it, the Americans are bent on making Western Germany the fulcrum of their economic power in Europe. How often does one hear the bitter phrase, "These guys are working, you are not."
On top of that comes the proposal, American sponsored and American pressed, for the re-armament of Ger-

many. In the "Economist" this week we read of very advanced proposals, very advanced indeed:
One or two popular writers have recently openly expressed a thought that is in the minds of many—that the European Army must develop into a German-American alliance, in which France would willingly accept Germany's role as defender of Western Europe. Major (Retd.) Adalbert Weinstein, who is in touch with professional military opinion, suggests in the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung that, as the psychological basis for a European army is evidently lacking in France, a possible alternative to the E.D.C. might well be the 'integration' of West German and American armies. These are straws in the wind. Many German military men believe that America will eventually find that it is cheaper and more efficient to re-arm Germany direct than through an international bureaucracy.
I should imagine that the German-Americans of the Middle West, Milwaukee and St. Paul, will say "Aye, Aye" to that.
In all these circumstances, "dragging our feet" or more positively "stopping the rot," so far from being a policy to be denounced, becomes, to my mind, a policy in the highest degree a vital British interest. There is very great reason to fear. What are the soldiers of E.D.C. to do when they are formed? If they stay where they are then they must evolve into guardians of the Schuman Plan, defending the concept of Ruhr-Lorraine against all corners. If, on the other hand, under pressure of N.A.T.O. they turn East we may be in for one of the most frightful wars that has ever rent mankind.
I come to the last part of what I want to say, the impact of N.A.T.O. on the Iron Curtain countries. There is a time in the life of politicians when issues are presented to them that test the very foundations of their political faith. Such an issue is presented to me today by the contractual agreements and the re-armament of Germany. These tests are not tests of courage at all. I have not welcomed the comments that occasionally came from the other side of the House when I have made speeches upon foreign policy. As an example of why they are not tests of courage, I should like to tell the House that only now, four, five and six years after the events, I find myself able to record that I have profoundly disagreed with the Prime Minister's foreign policy speeches from Fulton to Llandudno and from Zurich to Strasbourg.
I do not think that the atom bomb is a deterrent to Russia: I think it is a provocation. I remember Molotov's agonised cry, "We will have it, too." The real deterrent is Russia's unwillingness to be charged with the management of more countries than she can hold down. I do not think that the communisation of satellite countries constitutes a military terror. I think it is naive after the Teheran Agreements to suppose that they could be anything other than communised, and I further believe that the fact they have been communised constitutes a most exciting invitation to this country to undo over the next few decades some of the harm wrought by those Agreements. I do not think that the only language the Russians understand is force. I think they will meet force with force and possibly meet a force unwisely proffered by striking first, as is the habit with some of the baser animals.
My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary said yesterday that the Russians were more likely to talk if we pressed on with re-armament. Respectfully I disagree entirely. I think that, as the military build-up has been going forward in Western Europe, so we have seen the stepping up of the violent anti-American and anti-British propaganda in the East, and now this new no man's land created by the East German Premier across poor, divided Germany.
Why do we re-arm one half of Germany competitively with the other? Do we suppose that they will fight each other, like North and South Korea? If they do, with all these complex guarantees that we have given, Britain becomes a shattered island overnight. If they do not fight, what is to stop the generals and their staffs pulling out of their associated power relationships and securing a concordat on the frontier, as Bismarck, Kaiser Wilhelm and Hitler have taught them how to do? Who stops them doing it? Poland and France, Russia and the United States? How can they do so, estranged as they now are from each other.
One point that has not been mentioned in this debate is the position of Berlin in this build-up of arms. If Berlin were on our side there might be some reason for us to step beyond the level of rearmament that the other side has created,

but as it is on the far side, and with all these complex guarantees, it seems madness to tempt the East Germans to reply in kind, stage by stage, to West German re-armament.
I want to say something about the cost of re-armament. The right hon. Gentleman the Foreign Secretary said yesterday that there would be no net additional burden on us from German rearmament, and that is satisfactory, though many of us doubt how that will be achieved. But is German re-armament the best and most correct way to ensure that British exports remain competitive with German exports? I suggest that there are other ways, such as first, the institution of four-Power control and making Germany pay for her occupation. We are told that we have gone past that, that it cannot be done, that the position of Adenauer and his Government depends upon a forward move. My love for Dr. Adenauer is not as great as that.
Secondly, we could make Germany pay for her occupation by a quota of free exports to us of partly finished materials which we could finish off, competing with them on their own retained quota of finished goods. Thirdly, we could do something which so far has not been suggested, but which I think the Social Democrats in Germany would like very much: we could encourage Germany to assume some of the heavy burdens of the modern welfare State.
In conclusion, I want to return to the N.A.T.O. concept. I ask the House: What prospect has N.A.T.O. of bringing East Germany into the Western world, of detaching the satellites from the Soviet complex? It has no prospects at all. It is the most miserable instrument for the purpose. It is an instrument designed to consolidate Western friends but it makes those friendships glower into the eyes of the East, as the "Voice of America" makes one only too painfully conscious every time one listens to it.
In this far greater adventure of reaching out into the Iron Curtain and reclaiming some of these nations and erstwhile friends for democracy N.A.T.O. is a palsied organisation. I urge the Government to let it rest. I urge them to go for something else. I urge them to go for a four-Power conference with Russia now, even if the agenda is a loose one. I urge them to go for a united Germany


much on the lines of the great success we had in the four-Power control of united Austria, where, incidentally, the Iron Curtain is no Iron Curtain at all but the thinnest of veils.
I urge the Government to take up the long and fascinating task of rescuing these East European friends of ours of 15 and 20 years ago. Have the Poles forgotten that we went to war for them when the shadow of oppression and tyranny began to fall on them? Be assured they have not. They are awaiting with patience the day when by peaceful trade and painstaking negotiation we come to their aid and raise them up again. But great wisdom and great patience are needed for these things—traditional British virtues which we seem to have been losing in the American alliance.
I am convinced that these themes will raise the spirits of the nation. Today the younger generation is heartily sick of the gloomy prognostications and sombre statements that come from 10, Downing Street, from Washington and from the centres of arms and atomic energy production. They look for a return to independence in Great Britain. They look for the restoration of the skill and wisdom for which we have been famed in the past. They look for peace, for trade and for the propagation of the great liberal virtues which have made us the nation we are. I am certain they will not look in vain

2.7 p.m.

Mr. W. T. Proctor: We have listened to an interesting speech from the noble Lord the Member for Dorset, South (Viscount Hinchingbrooke). I fear that he lives in a dream world of his own creation—

Mr. S. Silverman: No, he does not he lives in an actual world.

Mr. Proctor: I want to comment upon one aspect of that speech in which, whilst rejecting the foreign policy of the Government, the noble Lord informed us that the only thing that would drag him into the Lobby in favour of the Motion would be if their home policy was in jeopardy. I should describe that as one good reason why no one should support the Government today or on any other day. A home policy which involves us in disruption of transport and steel and

in domestic disaster is something that commends itself to the noble Lord.
He referred to the fact, as he thought it to be, that Russia would meet force with force. I do not think that the Russians will attempt to meet superior force with inferior force. I should like to think that the Russians would meet reason with reason, and if anyone could tell us that this would be so, I should have great hopes of peace in the world at the present time.
We are at an historic turning point. We are now engaged in something which many hon. Members in 1945 would have thought impossible. Looking back to that period I think we would all have rejected the idea of the re-armament of Germany. We are faced with something that makes it necessary to look back and see what has brought about the great change in affairs.
I go back to the period of 18th November, 1946, when there was a debate in the House on foreign affairs. I quote from what my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, East (Mr. Cross-man) said then, in referring to the situation with regard to the Soviet Union and the cause of the rift in the world that was then appearing:
… in my view, the second main cause"—
of the change—
was the diplomatic and propaganda offensive launched by the Russians against the British Empire and the British Commonwealth…It was calculated…upon the basis that Great Britain was weak and that America was powerful and hated the British Empire, and that there might be a chance of disrupting the British Empire, and so securing Russian frontiers and Russian safety for even"— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th November, 1946: Vol. 430, c. 536.]
That was a correct reading of the situation at that time, and by and large that has been the situation right from that period up to the present.
I hoped in 1945—and, I think, the main body of Members hoped—that we should have been able to continue the great Alliance of the war—America, Russia and the British Commonwealth—and to rebuild the world together. Unfortunately, that has not been possible, and we cannot escape making our decision as to who was responsible for the situation that has been created up to the present time. I am bound to say that it is the opposition of the Soviet Union, as


indicated in the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, East, on 18th November, 1946. From that moment, we have a great turning point in history, and the actions of this country and of every country was a response to that new situation.
What was the response that we made to it? The only possible response was to organise our defence around America and American power. Let there be no mistake: outside of American power, the Soviet power was, and is, supreme. But we have accomplished that, and American power balances that of the Soviet. We have organised, at very great sacrifice, throughout the world, a balance in power. There is every hope at present of our making an agreement with the Soviet—a peaceful agreement, based on the fact that we are in the position today of having military strength.
One thing in which I say the Government today are wrong is in bringing forward this agreement at this time. An act of statesmanship on their part would be to withdraw it, to wait another few weeks until we come back after the Recess, and to give every possibility for a meeting of a four-Power Conference. Let us approach the Russians in every possible way. Let us give them every encouragement and make the most tremendous efforts in order that we may find out whether there is not a possibility of making peace.
The peace that we can arrange in Europe today is entirely different to the arrangements that might have been made in 1945 had we kept together. Today, we must recognise that Germany has emerged as a nation, and the basis of anything that we consider must be German unity, freedom and democracy. They must be accepted into the comity of nation on a basis of fair equality.
German unity, however, is not enough. That was Bismarck's policy. It was the policy of Hitler, and it led to disaster in the world. Unless it is contained in the greater unity of Europe, German unity is a great danger to the world. The noble Lord mentioned the great and devastating things that could happen as a result of a united Europe that was aggressive.

Mr. Malcolm MacMillan: A united Germany.

Mr. Proctor: A united Germany, and a united Europe. The noble Lord referred to the united Europe and the power of the steel and coal that were there. I believe that a united Europe can be a great bulwark for peace, because I believe that a united Europe would be peaceful. I know of no continent where there is a greater longing for peace than in Europe —and small wonder, because that continent has been very largely destroyed and has suffered more than any other as a result of war.
When once we were faced with potential and actual aggression, we are faced now with the fact that the day of the small nation is finished. The day of the sovereign power of the small country has gone, and gone for ever. We must recognise now that the day has arrived, at least, of the great groups. I should like to see the world organised on a single basis. A single all-world Government is what I stand for and believe in, and is what I should like to get to as quickly as we can. But we must face the fact that we have to build up all-world Government on the basis of great groups.
Let us look round and see what great groups are in existence. There is, first, the American group, an almost all-powerful and economic and military entity. The next group is our own, the British Commonwealth and Empire. It is a loosely knit group, and it is not a complete economic unit. In this House, however, where we have some very peculiar and extraordinary political organisations in operation, we exercise the sovereign power for 50 million people in this country and for 65 million people in the Colonial Empire.
I should like to see us make a tremendous attempt to coalesce that sovereign power and make it a sovereign power by consent. If we look at the possibility of taking the colonial area with the 50 millions in this country and developing the huge resources that are there at our elbow, as it were, I believe that we could constitute one of the great groups in the new world that I envisage.
The next group is a united Europe. We should do everything we possibly can to create complete political and economic unity in Europe. I see no reason whatever why Europe cannot function as a great single economic and political unit that would be of great benefit and power


to the world in close association with us. Next, the Soviet Union, covering the vast area that it does, is a very natural economic and political unit. There does not seem to me to be any reason why it could not be fitted in peacefully into the world. China is another one. If we had the good will, all these groups could easily be fitted into an organisation that would rapidly become a complete world organisation.
But we have at present to win the world from the idea of the development of armaments and of rivalry to that of peaceful co-operation. Here, I must say a word or two about our own defence programme. We went into that programme ourselves, and no Member in the House—at any rate, very few—can divest himself of responsibility for the decisions that were made.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Oh, yes, we can.

Mr. Proctor: I said, except "very few." I had my hon. Friend in mind.
We went in for a programme of £3,600 million at that time. It was developed to £4,700 million. No one, so far as I know, ever said or even thought that we could accomplish those programmes out of our own resources. Certainly, everyone I spoke to said—every committee I attended and everything I heard in connection with the programme —that it could only be accomplished by pooling the resources of the whole democratic world.
It is time we raised again with our friends and allies the whole question of what is to be the development of this great programme so far as Great Britain is concerned. We cannot have the risk of completely turning over our economy to a war economy and being left, at the end, with an economy which produces war goods but not peace goods if we are fortunate enough to get peace. We must recognise that the time has now arrived for consideration of that policy on the very highest plane. There is nothing inconsistent in that with all the statements made by the Front Bench of the Labour Party and all the decisions the Labour Party have made throughout this programme. Everyone inside the Labour Party, with a few exceptions, must take equal responsibility for the decisions we have made.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Might I point out that one of the few is the president of my hon. Friend's own trade union?

Mr. Proctor: Yes, my hon. Friend refers, of course, to the pacifist president, a very respected head, of our organisation. Happily, of course in this country we have no barriers against opinion for the very highest positions and everyone is entitled to his own opinion on this matter. I certainly agree with this complete tolerance and freedom of opinion.
But in dealing with this great defence programme, a great effort we are undertaking that must strain our economy, I say that the only basis on which it can be carried out in the world is a basis of complete co-operation between equals. The reservations which have been referred to in the House on several occasions this week were specifically put in, in my opinion, to make sure that the British economy would not be ruined by this great armaments programme and the time has arrived to ensure that.
I suggest to my hon. Friends that now there is a great turning point in history for us. We are in opposition now and that has certain advantages which do not follow when in office. One of the greatest things which could be accomplished today would be a united Social Democratic movement for Western Europe. I should like to see my hon. Friends make a tremendous effort to get agreement with the German Social Democratic Party, the French Socialist Party and all the Socialist parties of Europe. I should like to see us considering the whole question of the future of European defence—

Mr. Richard Fort: Could the hon. Member describe the circumstances a little more clearly in the event of other countries not holding the same fervent enthusiasm as he has for Socialism? What arrangements can he make with non-Socialist parties in other countries?

Mr. Proctor: I want to develop the argument for a moment on this basis. One of the great disasters which happened in the modern world has been the fight between Russian Communism and social democracy in Europe. The decision which Lenin made that he would blot out, as it were, social democracy in Western


Europe and fight it by Communist Parties was one of the disastrous decisions of history. I want the Social Democrats of Western Europe to realise that they are in a position of very great power. I should like to see us in the position of having absolute agreement with the Social Democrats of Western Germany.
I should like to see us have an agreed policy of European defence. I think everyone accepts the necessity for defence at present. I should like us to approach the Russians. While I am asking and pleading with the Government to do everything possible to promote a Four-Power Conference, I should like to see a social democratic approach from Western Europe to Russia on that basis to see, at the same time as the Government may be going ahead if we can, to find some way of building a bridge which will give peace in Europe and throughout the world.
I believe that the Russians have to bear the chief blame for the historic changes which have taken place. While we can forgive all the statesmen of the past for the errors they have made provided we can secure good in the future, we should approach the Russians on the basis of making a really tremendous effort for peace. My greatest hope of peace is this. I would have little hope of peace if I saw any great group in the world with the possibility of reaping an advantage out of war.
But I believe now that every great group and every nation throughout the world has a vested interest in peace. I believe we should build on that basis and make an appeal at the present time. I ask the leaders of the Labour Party, in the main, to make the big effort I am suggesting among the Social Democrats of the West to try to build this bridge between ourselves and the Russians in order that we may turn from the vast armaments programme to a programme of peace.
If we could use the tremendous American industrial machine, the wonderful machine we have in this country, the industrial power of Western Europe and the industrial power of Japan to set about meeting the human needs of all the people in the world and create a new world of peace and happiness, I believe that by planning we could utilise those

machines which are in our hands for the purposes of peace. I ask statesmen on our side of the House to make a party effort in this matter. I plead with the Government; let them here, today, for the sake of unity and as an act of statesmanship, say, "We will postpone this ratification for a few months. We will make the effort, test the sincerity of the Russians, and come back to report to you on this matter."
If they did that they would place us in this House in a happy position. If success came as a result, then, naturally, the Government would receive great praise. If failure came, I am certain there would be an absolutely united House of Commons on this matter.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Hopkin Morris): Lord John Hope.

Mr. Percy Shurmer: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Member whom you have called, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, but I want to raise a matter of importance to all hon. Members.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Does the hon. Member raise a point of order?

Mr. Shurmer: Yes, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. Today, there is a three-line Whip which necessitates all hon. Members being present, but the Members' Dining Room has had only one-third of its number of waitresses. Furthermore, some of the food had to be sent back, as it was unfit to eat.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: That is not a point of order.

2.29 p.m.

Lord John Hope: Time is getting on and I propose to be, as I think I always am, very brief in what I have to say.

Mr. Shurmer: We are very hungry today. We have had no food.

Lord John Hope: I will guarantee to give the hon. Member at least food for thought if he listens to me.
I am sorry that my noble Friend the Member for Dorset, South (Viscount Hinchinbrooke) has left the Chamber, because I want to say a word or two about his speech, which I am sure we all much enjoyed. I think he ought to cheer up. That is what I was going


to ask him to do—nothing less friendly than that. Of course, it is perfectly obvious that if the United States are to desert all their treaty obligations and that if the future foreign policy of the United States is to revert to its past isolationism, World War III becomes inevitable; but all the evidence is to the contrary. I am only sorry that my noble Friend failed to read the results of the party conventions in the U.S.A.
I would say of this debate, all of which I have heard, and which has been a most helpful and valuable debate, that five facts have been made abundantly clear as a result of it. They are all concerned with German re-armament. First, no one likes it; second, no one has forgotten the past; third, the Russians made it inevitable; fourth, both the major parties and also the Liberal Party agree to it in principle; and fifth, all parties want safeguards, so far as safeguards are possible.
When there has been so much agreement on the basic issues. I think it is a pity that this compromise, in the form of the official Opposition Amendment, had to be attempted. It is an ingenious compromise so far as the words are concerned—a compromise of "Not yet. Yes, we agree that this has got to happen but not yet." It is ingenious but I am afraid it is dishonest, because although undoubtedly some hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite genuinely feel that this ratification must be effected one day but that it is not time yet, there are other hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite who mean, if they can, to see that it does not happen at all. That is why I am entitled to say it is dishonest for those who think in that way to vote for that compromise Amendment.
The two most striking speeches from the benches opposite yesterday were those of the hon. Members for Coventry, East (Mr. Crossman) and Leeds, South-East (Mr. D. Healey). I wish briefly to deal with those speeches on their merits. The hon. Member for Coventry, East said one thing in his speech which seemed to me to slip by those who subsequently took part in this debate. It is something I was waiting for someone to comment on.
He said at one stage—he was rather driven to say—that it would only be in a desperate emergency that he would

re-arm Germany. Yet that same hon. Gentleman was jubilant a short time ago, in an article to which the Joint Under-Secretary of State referred, at the prospect of delay in the ratification of these agreements and at the prospect of that delay killing E.D.C. stone dead.
But the death of E.D.C. must mean at the very least making a vacuum in Germany which must be more likely than anything else to bring about the desperate emergency in which the hon. Gentleman would arm the Germans. A great deal of time there would be to do that effectively when that hour arrives. The hon. Member reminds me of nothing so much as the famous animal that ran so fast round the tree that it managed to catch itself. I say seriously to the hon. Member that in a serious moment of this sort slick dialectics are no substitute for a sense of responsibility.
I do not quite know which camp the feet of the right hon. Member for Leeds, South-East are in; I believe that he has a foot in both camps. I am not sure. I have heard the hon. Member make a brilliant speech at Strasbourg and a very good one here yesterday. Mine will be a good deal shorter and probably a good deal less good than his. But it is quite clear that the hon. Gentleman, too, means to kill E.D.C. if he can. I have already commented briefly upon the consequences of that, and I wish to say one more thing about it in a few moments.
Meanwhile I wish to point out to the House a significant difference between the two speeches of the hon. Member—that at Strasbourg and that of yesterday. In the Strasbourg speech the hon. Gentleman went all out for the admission of Germany into N.A.T.O. Yesterday, he was pulling his punches and in an eloquent but very wary and rather woolly paraphrase merely talked about closer integration with the Atlantic Community, or something of the sort, because he has seen, since he made that Strasbourg speech, that the inclusion of Germany in N.A.T.O. now, with an absolutely independent army of her own which she would herself equip and which she would command, would be more likely than anything else to bring about the one thing of which he and his hon. Friends dislike the prospect most.
I would say to the hon. Member, to his hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, East and to others, that, whether they


know it or not—and I am sure they do know it—in striking at E.D.C. they are striking at the one development that made the Russians look like talking sense. At the end of February, 1952, came the Lisbon Conference, and it was only a fortnight after that when the Soviet Union sent their first Note proposing the creation of an all-German Government. Therefore, I say, let them not try to kill E.D.C.; they are doing no service to the cause of peace.
I believe that the real reason for the Opposition Amendment is something quite different from the merits of the case, and I think it is a very serious one. I am sure that the real reason is the demand by the left wing of the party opposite for nothing less than an end to bi-partisan foreign policy. There might, of course, come a moment when any Government or party might have to declare a break with the principle of bipartisan foreign policy if they simply could not carry on with it, but I wish to make an appeal to hon. Members opposite that that moment ought to be avoided if it is humanly possible. Either one thinks that in principle a bi-partisan foreign policy is the nation's life blood or one does not. If one does, one ought to be very careful and sure of oneself before one breaks it.
I now wish to quote to the House some words written by the hon. Member for Maldon (Mr. Driberg) in "Reynolds News" on 24th February, 1952. He said:
Tuesday night's division will be, in one way, the most refreshing division we have voted in since 1945: it should symbolise the beginning of the end of bi-partisanship it foreign policy. We must get back to the principle clearly set out by Attlee in 'The Labour Party in Perspective'—that there can be no general continuity or identity in the foreign policies of a Socialist and of a Conservative Government.
Let us have it from the party opposite whether what I have just quoted represents the view of the Labour Party. It is important that we should know and I hope that the right hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Dalton) will respond to my request that we should be told the answer to that question. In a way, I am sorry that the right hon. Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. H. Morrison), with his great experience at the Foreign Office, has not intervened in this debate. I think it would have been helpful, and that he certainly would have

come out in favour of bi-partisanship in principle in foreign policy. I hope I am not mistaking the intentions of the right hon. Member for Bishop Auckland when I say that I am afraid that he, as, shall we say, the elder "New Statesman" of the Labour Party, is more likely to follow his junior colleague, and to denounce bi-partisanship in foreign affairs.
It is healthy and it is inevitable that the two great parties in the State should fight, and fight hard, and generally it is not a case of shadow boxing. But I hope that in this case it is, and I hope very much that the speech of the right hon. Gentleman will bear me out. The Labour Party in opposition, when the peace of the world and the safety and security of this country are the primary concern, ought to help us, as we, when we were in opposition, helped them.

2.42 p.m.

Mr. Hugh Dalton: It is most natural, and most healthy, that in a debate on such a subject as we have been discussing for these two days sincere differences of view and of emphasis should be declared, and that we should all speak plainly what is in our minds. It has indeed been evident during this debate that such differences as there are and there are considerable differences—do not run wholly along a party frontier. There was, for example that most remarkable speech to which we have just listened from the noble Lord the Member for Dorset, South (Viscount Hinchingbrooke). It was a very clear, brave, individual speech which I was very glad to hear, On the other hand, there are hon. Friends of mine who have expressed views with which I have not been wholly in agreement, but which I am very glad they should be able to come here and express. All this is wholly healthy.

Mr. John Paton: There are not nearly enough of them.

Mr. Dalton: It is also very natural that on this subject different views should be held. For example, our judgment on the past record of great nations—more than one; our estimate of the probable future intentions of great nations—more than one of them; the lessons that we draw from history and experience; and where, when we add it all up and try to bring it all back into a final judgment; where, in a world which, evidently, it


would be half-witted to view with undue optimism, lies the lesser evil, and where lies the stronger hope?
We must all do our best in these circumstances to reach the conclusion which we think will lead us away from this looming menace of a third world war rather than towards it. The votes we cast today, and the speeches which will have been made in this debate, must all be judged in relation to that. It has been well said by a great man that none of us can escape history. The votes we cast in this debate and the words we shall have spoken during it will be commented upon
far on in summers that we shall not see.
This will be a very historic Parliamentary occasion.
May I say a word about British public opinion as a whole, which has not been much mentioned today? What is the view, broadly, of those which we represent on this issue? Some hon. Members of the House look forward, almost with eager anticipation, to the re-armament of Germany. Others look forward to it with deep foreboding; and in between those extremes there are many intermediate emotions. But what about the millions of people whom we here represent?
So far as I can judge, there is very little enthusiasm anywhere in this country for the early re-armament of Germany. There is certainly no strong wish to hurry it up, and there is considerable repugnance to the general idea. They are not all experts on Foreign Affairs, but I think I have accurately summed up the general feeling of the British people. I may follow that up by saying that, no doubt like many other right hon. and hon. Friends, I have received letters from many people about this subject in recent months and weeks. I have received a very large number of letters against German re-armament and exceedingly few in favour of it.
It is the experience of every public man that, in general, those persons write to him who disagree with what he is saying and not those who agree with him. For this reason this proportion of my correspondence is, I think, more notable. I am not taking into account those machine-made letters, such as were referred to yesterday by my hon. Friend

the member for Attercliffe (Mr. J. Hynd) but letters written, very obviously, by decent, sincere, ordinary citizens who are much troubled by this problem.
Looking back for a moment, and my hon. Friend the Member for Eccles (Mr. Procter) referred to this, it is indeed a tragic reflection that if only at the conclusion of the last war the great alliance of the three principal victors had held firm, the British Commonwealth, the United States and the Soviet Union; if we could have marched forward arm in arm only a little distance into the future, how different would that future have become. It is now the recent past. It is clear that, had that been possible, we should not be discussing German rearmament today.
Had that alliance held, nobody would have thought it was desirable or necessary that the Germans should be armed—except perhaps for a rudimentary police force. On the contrary, by now, in my judgment, we should have gone a long way in the disarmament of those victorious nations by mutual agreement, and established, at comparatively little cost in money, manpower and materials, a real collective security which would have endured. But this was not to be.
It is easy to say—and true to say—that the principal reason why it did not come about is because the Soviet Union showed through those succeeding years a stubborn and unto-operative attitude. Everyone knows that and the Labour Party have declared it in a recent declaration we have made. Having said that, with which all hon. Members probably agree, I would add that it is not enough to apportion the blame for the past. We must move forward from that judgment and strive, in spite of all that, to build a better future.
In approaching this problem it would be dishonest if we did not have in our minds—and I am sure that most hon. Members have had in their minds during this debate—a very simple and fundamental question. On the whole, balancing one thing with another, if we have to choose between these two, a strongly armed Germany or a strongly armed Russia, which would be the greater menace in the future to Britain and to the whole of the free world? That is the question we must all ask ourselves in this context. We must ask


ourselves, "Are we making the lives of the young generation in Britain safer or more hazardous by the operation which is today being discussed?"
I ask that question and I put it to myself, as we all must. There is, I think, no easy answer to it. It is a dark riddle. But I am sure that we ought, each of us, to be asking it of ourselves and trying to find the best answer that we can. The Germans are a highly gifted people, highly gifted both in the arts and the sciences, both in industry and in war. They are more gifted in some respects than any other race on earth. They are a most formidable people. They have immense power of organisation. They have a marked national egoism and they have shown in the past strong streaks of utter ruthlessness. I think that is a fair description.
Some hope that we shall be able, by what is now being done, to "integrate" them, as the catchword goes, or at any rate the western section and the majority of them, into some organisation in West Europe, and that, as the phrase goes, they will be "on our side," against the Russians if trouble comes, and against Communism generally. It may be so. I deny none of these possibilities, but I am inclined to think that they will not be so much on our side. I am inclined to think that they will be on the German side, wherever they may think that that side is, in any future situations which may arise. "Deutschland über Alles" is their national anthem. They sing it with conviction, and I think that most of them mean just what they sing.
We must take account of the many other realities which now we are considering. The Prime Minister is not here, but I wish to pay a tribute to him as the historian of the First World War. I have lately been re-reading, "The World Crisis," which most hon. and right hon. Members will know well, with a view to re-covering the background of long ago.
There are many moving and eloquent passages in that book, but none more so than this, from which I venture to make a brief quotation, at the close of that great story ending with victory in 1918:
The curtain falls upon the long front in France and Flanders… The ruins are rebuilt, the riven trees replaced by new plantations…Merciful oblivion draws its veil; the

crippled limp away; the mourners fall back into the sad twilight of memory. New youth is here to claim its rights, and the perennial stream flows forward, even in the battle zone, as if the tale were all a dream.
That is a beautiful and moving passage. But, Sir, it was no dream. It had been a cruel reality. And I quote these few more sentences from the same closing pages of the Prime Minister's great book. He said:
In the sphere of force, human records contain no manifestation like the eruption of the German volcano. For four years the Germans fought and defied the five Continents of the world by land and sea and air … To break their strength and science and to curb their fury, it was necessary to bring all the greatest nations of mankind into the field against them. Nearly twenty million men perished or shed their blood before the sword was wrested from that terrible hand.
And then the Prime Minister used these words, which have rung in my memory every since I first read them:
Surely, Germans, for history it is enough!
But, Sir, it was not enough. It all came again, with variations, in 1939. The memories of that are still too fresh for me to need to speak of them in detail. We cannot be quite sure, and I doubt whether we can even be vaguely hopeful, that a possibility of its happening a third time can be excluded. In my view, it would be either simple-minded or evasive not to recall these matters in this debate. It is because many of us recall them with great vividness that we have been, as every Member of the House must have been, tortured to find some way of giving a vote in this House which should be realistic and look facts straight between the eyes.
We have set down an Amendment in three sections. I will briefly recapitulate the case for it.
In the first place, we reaffirm as our aim:
… the inclusion of a democratic Germany on a basis of equality, in a Continental European community, which itself will form a part of a constantly developing Atlantic community.…
Those words are taken from the communiqué of the three Foreign Ministers, of whom my right hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. H. Morrison) was one, in Washington in September, 1951. They are also included in a recent statement called "Labour's


Foreign Policy," in which we have declared:
The Labour Party is convinced that Western Europe, with or without Britain, and however close its unity, cannot stand alone in the modern world. A European community is possible only within the context of the wider Atlantic unity, and any form of European unity which may tend to weaken the Atlantic unity is to he avoided.
That is our conviction and that, I hope, is completely clear. By that we stand. The second section of our Amendment deals with the acceptance in principle of German re-armament subject to due safeguards and conditions.
There has been much discussion about this during the debate. It has been truly said that in September, 1950, less than two years ago, the late Ernest Bevin went to New York and immediately, upon his arrival, declared publicly—and those who are ignorant of this or those who doubt it need only turn up the newspapers of that time—at a Press conference before the main discussion had begun:
German re-armament is unthinkable.
That was his view then. My hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, East (Mr. Crossman gave a quotation yesterday which, frankly, I had forgotten, but it greatly reinforces the strength of the quotation which I had remembered. There is no doubt that at that time that was Ernest Bevin's view.
There is also no doubt—this was questioned yesterday, so I must produce an element of evidence—why it was that he changed his public attitude upon the matter. It has often been said, in a general way, that it was due to American influence. It was, of course, due to that, and nothing else. The American Press at that time carried many reports of what was being said and done in the conference. And I have a clear recollection of all that as a Member of His Majesty's Government, as I was then.
The simplest way of putting it is to quote a phrase much used in the American Press at that time, "The single package." It was Mr. Dean Acheson who had used this term at a Press conference and it appeared in all American newspapers. The "single package" policy was one containing three elements which were being offered together and not separately. The three elements were an American Supreme Commander,

General Eisenhower, in Europe; American ground troops in Europe; and, thirdly, German re-armament accepted at least in principle.
There is, therefore, no question as to what happened. I know that Ernest Bevin accepted this principle of German re-armament with reluctance. He was most careful, as his public statements show, to make clear that he had accepted it in principle, leaving open for further discussion all the difficult questions of the timing and the amount and the framework in which it should be done.
We say in our Amendment, and we mean it, that we do not retreat from the acceptance of that principle now. We still accept it. We reaffirm it. On the other hand, our acceptance is, and always has been, subject to certain conditions and safeguards, many of which have been mentioned in the debate. They are, primarily, the now well-known Attlee conditions first declared by my right hon. Friend when he was Prime Minister in a speech in this House on 12th February, 1951. They have been quoted by the present Government as an indication of British foreign policy at that time, in Command Paper 8492.
I should like to say that, of course, these conditions were not thrown off casually by my right hon. Friend. They followed long, anxious and even sometimes animated discussions among those of us who then had to bear collective responsibility. Once they had been declared by my right hon. Friend who was then Prime Minister, they were, I think, generally accepted, not only by the Labour Party but by the country generally, as being reasonable and just conditions to be insisted upon. And they still are.
I do not accept the view that they are now out of date. As a matter of fact, they were repeated by my right hon. Friend in an important article which he contributed to the "Daily Herald" only a few months ago, since we have been in Opposition. It was on 6th March. 1952, and I thought it a most valuable article, in which, after discussing other matters relating to international affairs, my right hon. Friend wrote:
I think that, reasonably interpreted, these conditions are still sound.


He went on to say:
Much discussion has taken place since then, but it is not yet clear what are the views of the German people.
That brings me to one particular matter which was mentioned by one or two speakers, and on which I am anxious to say a word or two. If we want to know what is the democratic view of a people, one of the best ways of finding out is to let them vote. That is, on the whole, as good a way as any other. It was for this reason that some of us, on returning to this country after a visit to Bonn, did propose that, before the present West German Government ratified these treaties, they should put the issue to the vote in West Germany.
I do not regard this, as some have described it in gloomy language, as constituting an improper interference in the affairs of another nation. We are, after all, in opposition. When in Government, we have, of course, to take more care. When in opposition, one can recover a certain healthy freedom and speak one's mind without too much consideration of these secondary aspects of the matter. I regard it as a perfectly proper thing that members of the Labour Party, when in opposition, should speak quite freely, and that that will be for the general good. [Interruption.] My right hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Bellenger), who was for a short time in the Government, ought to know that one has to watch one's step when in the Government. We are not now in the Government, and I am only anxious to deal with the point which has been raised by hon. Gentlemen opposite.
The present Bundestag has no mandate whatever to deal with this matter; that would be the British interpretation of the position. I am told that the doctrine of the mandate is not part of the German system of democratic thought. This Bundestag was elected in 1949. That was a full year before Ernest Bevin declared that German re-armament was still unthinkable. It is perfectly clear that the reasons which led Germans to vote for one party or another in 1949, whatever these reasons were, had nothing to do with German re-armament—either for or against. It was not an issue; nor was it in any voter's mind.
Therefore, we made, as we hoped, this helpful suggestion, this simple and democratic suggestion, which, however, was not everywhere received with approval. It is very natural that any Government, thinking it likely that a new election might produce a change—after all, Her Majesty's present Administration will sympathise very much with this, because they do not want an early Election—might make an initial resistance to any such proposal, but we must take that for granted, and value it accordingly.
I now want to say a few words about the legal aspect which has been debated. Legal arguments have been used to show that it is impossible, under the present German basic law, for an election to take place before the summer of next year. The Foreign Secretary, when we last debated this subject, quoted Article 68 of the basic law, but he did not quote Article 63. But, before I say anything about that, I will make some non-legal comments on the whole affair.
I am quite sure that, if Dr. Adenauer himself wanted an election, or if the three Powers wanted an election, or, if the four-Power talks succeed, as we all hope they may, and the four Powers agreed that there ought to be a new election for the whole of Germany, and not only for West Germany, it could be arranged. No lawyer will persuade me to the contrary. I put that forward as from one honorary Bencher of the Middle Temple to another. I was present, as he will remember, when the Foreign Secretary was "churched" in the Middle Temple a little while ago.
Legal niceties can nearly always be adjusted to political requirements. Nearly every person in either party in the House who has had experience of public office will agree with that. But let us now look at the purely legal aspect for a moment. If the argument is to be on a purely legal plane, I would draw attention to Article 63 of the basic law, under which—I am only summarising, of course, I have the text here, but I do not want to quote at length—if Dr. Adenauer were to resign and if he could persuade the majority of those supporting him to vote against anybody else coming forward as his successor, the Federal President would then be able to dissolve the Bundestag within 21 days. Meanwhile, until a new Chancellor was appointed, as laid down under Article 69, the retiring


Chancellor remains in office. That is an important practical point. He would not be displaced from office; indeed, in fact, he would be able to go to the country as the head of a caretaker Government, a procedure and a precedent that will be understood by right hon. Gentlemen opposite.
Therefore, I maintain, having put the issue on the narrowly legalistic plane as between two honorary Benchers of the Middle Temple, that there remains no argument why our proposal is constitutionally impracticable. I still think that it would clear the air and remove a number of ambiguities if an election were to take place in Western Germany. That is my personal opinion.
Now I turn to another of the "Attlee conditions," which is very important. It is the third in order of the "Attlee conditions," and it provides that
The arrangements must be such"—
that is, for German re-armament—
as to preclude the re-emergence of a German military menace.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell), who moved our Amendment yesterday, had many interesting things to say, knowing all about these matters and having attended conferences both beyond the Atlantic as well as in this country on this subject, about the successive stages which this scheme for German re-armament within a certain framework has gone through.
The scheme has taken many different shapes at different times. I will not go into detail about it, but it is clear that, in some respects, the scheme has become less promising, from the point of view of satisfying the third "Attlee condition," as it has proceeded. In particular, at one time, we were thinking in terms of brigade groups, relatively small units, and we are now thinking in terms of divisions. I do not know the exact size of the divisions, but they are, of course, substantially larger units.
It is very clear, as I think the right hon. Gentleman will agree, that, subject to considerations of military efficiency—and if they are not to be efficient, we might as well not have them—the reemergence, suddenly, overnight, of a German general staff, suddenly commanding troops collected from here and there, previously labelled E.D.C., now to be labelled as the German Army, the larger

the units become, the greater the danger of such an overnight transformation. Quite evidently, if we think not in terms of divisions of men of some nationality but of whole army corps particularly, that would be a form of integration which would be even less likely to reassure us against the re-emergence of a German military menace.
As I understand, what is being contemplated is a force of 12 German divisions—500,000 men according to Herr Blank, who speaks with authority about these things—a German Tactical Air Force and the beginnings of a German Navy. This will be a very formidable force when it grows to its full height. Of course, it will take time to grow to its full height, but when it does it will be very formidable.
Are we really confident that it will be effectively contained within the framework laid down for E.D.C.? Will it not be, when it reaches that size, what the Prime Minister straight-forwardly called it, a German Army? About the Prime Minister's position there has never been any doubt—less still since the right hon. Gentleman spoke about it yesterday—but as long ago as 30th January, 1952, the Prime Minister, speaking in this House, said he hoped that various developments
would enable France to take a more confident view about the development of a German Army, which is of the utmost importance to the problem."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 30th January, 1952; Vol. 495, c. 201.]
A German Army, he said. The Prime Minister is a great master of English. I have paid that tribute in another context earlier. He calls a spade a spade; he does not call it an integrated element in an agricultural defence community. He calls this army a German Army, and that is what it will be. Yesterday, the right hon. Gentleman the Foreign Secretary lifted just a corner of the veil, so tantalisingly, when he said:
In 1949, there were many people who began to feel that Western Germany should be able to play its part in the defence of Western Europe as well as in its economic and political recovery. This was a hard decision to take. Many of us hesitated to take it. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister hesitated less than most of us."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 31st July, 1952; Vol. 504, c. 1709.]
I naturally expected that. If the right hon. Gentleman thought fit to lift this corner of the veil enough to give us a dim vision of the disputations in the


shadow Cabinet, would he give us a little more information? Are there still differences of view in the sunlit Cabinet room between those who hesitate a little, and those who hesitate not at all, in rushing forward and putting the most modern weapons into German hands?
I have spoken of the danger—I think we all apprehend it—and I will not develop the argument further. But I must say one more thing which has some bearing on future peace or war in Europe. In many respects, Germany is unique. I have already said that in many respects the Germans are the most gifted of all the Europeans. But Germany is the only European State which openly makes claims to large changes in her frontiers with her neighbours, and it is this consideration which has, in the minds of the French Government, among others, given rise to great hesitation about the whole line of policy which should be followed as regards membership of N.A.T.O.
There is no pretence about it. The Germans say, in almost all their parties—not the Communists; they are told to he conservative about the Oder-Neisse Line —but all the others, including the Socialists, say they desire to get back their 1937 frontiers. No doubt they mean what they say, that they will only seek to get the change by patient conversations and not by force. Yet it remains a unique feature of the Germans that they alone openly make these claims for a change in the status quo in this respect.
As I read history, no such change, if it is of any magnitude, will come about except by bloodshed and war. We cannot put out of our minds the fear that, as the years go by, and they grow stronger, their claims may take on a harsher note, and that we may be closer to one of two equally dreadful possibilities; that the order may be given in German to advance across the Oder-Neisse Line into the lands inhabited by Slays, and of our being involved through some ambiguity of guarantees, or through some fabricated frontier incident. There will be a new, special danger of war arising here from the moment when we have strong German forces looking eastwards towards those coveted lands.
The other danger is that we shall repeat Rapallo or the Molotov-Ribbentrop

relationship, and that we shall get a union of a strongly armed Germany and a strongly armed Russia against the rest. I do not like that any better. These thoughts must be in our minds, and they are part of the whole series of questions which it would be dishonest of us not to raise.
I now turn to another matter mentioned yesterday. It is the financial liability which we are undertaking under these conventions. I asked the right hon. Gentleman some questions yesterday and he was kind enough to reply. But I still do not feel at all clear on the subject, and I do not think that anybody else who has studied the various declarations which have been made, and which do not seem to agree with one another completely, can be quite clear.
I have a queer sense of doubt whether that complete accord and agreement on every point, however small, between the Treasury and the Foreign Office—which was, of course, a marked feature of the late Government—still persists today. I am not quite sure that at one stage the right hon. Gentleman did not run away with the cart, from the point of view of the Treasury, and make some rather rash assertions which the Treasury have ever since been trying to overtake and smooth away.
I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will say something about this when he replies, and I will, of course, give reasons for thinking this. The point is very simple. We have today on the Continent of Europe four British divisions. I gladly believe, and I am proud to hear it, that these are some of the best divisions which have ever been put into the field, and that those divisions are the best in Europe and, indeed, in the world. I can quite well believe that, and am proud to think it is true. At the moment a considerable part of the occupation costs fall to be paid by the Germans. The question I want answered is: What is to happen when this financial convention is signed and when, likewise, the E.D.C. treaty is signed? What is to happen with regard to the apportionment of these costs?
The thing that put me, so to speak, on the alert and which caused me to sound the alarm—if I may paraphrase a famous phrase—was when I read the


right hon. Gentleman's reply to a supplementary question on 7th May, in which he said:
After that date, and I cannot say what date it will be, because it depends how far expenditure is divided between the German contribution and our own—it may be the end of April or the end of June—after that date, there will certainly be an extra contribution of ours on account of the contribution the Germans themselves are making."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 7th May, 1952; Vol. 500, c. 362.]
I thought that clearly meant that we should ourselves have to pay more—in respect of our troops in Germany—and this qualification is very important, as I will explain in a moment. That is what I thought it meant, and I was strengthened in that opinion when I read what the right hon. Gentleman said on 10th June in answer to a question. He was asked by my right hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell), certain questions about the new arrangements and how it would work out.
I do not know whether my right hon. Friend was setting a trap or thinking aloud, or what. However, he asked a very valuable question. He asked:
Is it not perfectly obvious that, after the N.A.T.O. arrangement has come to an end in June, 1953, whatever new arrangement is come to, our contribution to the maintenance of our Forces in the West is bound to be higher than at the present time? Is not that perfectly obvious?
The Foreign Secretary, rushing eagerly forward into bi-partisan arms, as he thought, replied:
I entirely agree with the right hon. Gentleman. That is entirely true and, of course, that is always part of the necessary consequences of a German contribution."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th June, 1952; Vol. 502, c. 38.]
Taking those together, what can they mean? Surely they can only mean that at these dates at least—there may have been a change of thought and of policy since—the right hon. Gentleman was convinced that following June, 1953, under these new arrangements, we should have to pay larger sums than now in respect of our troops in Germany. But in what currency and how? And here we come to the most serious aspect of it all. We shall have to pay in gold in respect of our troops in Germany, owing to the unhappy workings, in its present phase, of the European Payments Union.
The Germans are now sucking away our gold reserves at a disconcerting pace. That means that any additional payment

we have to make to them in respect of services rendered by them in their country will have to be in gold or dollars. This is very serious. The Government, apart from other arguments I am using, cannot justify our giving approval to a financial convention in which there is no safeguard at all for our gold reserves. We should have further consideration of this and a clearer statement about where we shall stand financially next year.
We are in a very serious balance of payments position. Everybody knows that. Even if the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer had remained quite silent this week, everybody would have known. Therefore, it is vital that we should know whether or not there is now a new threat looming up to our gold reserves and our financial solvency. Perhaps I might be permitted to quote a remark which I made elsewhere, when I said that this might well be the last golden straw to break the patient British camel's back. That is just about what it would be, if at this time our gold reserves were flowing away under the operation of economic forces and on top of it this further great burden was thrust upon us. I should like the foreign Secretary to say a word more about that when he replies to the debate.
We declare in the third section of our Amendment that the time is inopportune for the bringing forward of these instruments. Why bring them forward now? Why not wait until the autumn, when we can see how far the scene has changed? We gain nothing by bringing them forward now. Unless E.D.C. is actually formed, they will never come into operation. If the project breaks down, if it is not ratified by the German Bundestag and the French Parliament and other Parliaments all this is just waste paper. Why bring this forward while these matters are in debate, or soon will be debated, in the Parliaments of Western Europe?
If we wait until the autumn we shall know a lot of things we cannot know now. We shall have an idea by then of the final decision of the German constitutional court on the matter. The decision reported yesterday is not the final decision. It is only that the court will not pronounce on a hypothetical question. They say, "We should like to see the law first and then we will say whether a simple or a two-thirds majority is required." If it


is a two-thirds majority that is required, then Dr. Adenauer has not got it. The arithmetic is against him there.
We should hope also that by the autumn, in any case, there will be progress in the re-arming of other N.A.T.O. States, and, in particular, that more will have been done to help the French. It is most distasteful to me that the French are left at the back of the queue, while the pressure is all to re-arm their Eastern neighbours. In the House a little while ago I asked the right hon. Gentleman whether he accepted the principle that the re-arming of France should precede that of Germany, and he replied that, of course, he did. I hope that that will go forward between now and the autumn.
By the autumn I hope that we shall have also a clearer picture of our financial position. Most important of all, we shall then see whether these four-Power talks are getting anywhere or not. That is the most vital of all the considerations entering into this discussion. I cannot share the view that it is sheer democracy to have been so slow in these exchanges. I do not feel in my bones that all three Western Powers, and Dr. Adenauer as well, who re-writes the exercises at the last moment, are all equally eager to get round the table with the Russians. I will not apportion blame except to say that I think the French are pretty blameless in this connection.
It is really very tragic that the months should slip by and that these argumentative Notes should be sent backwards and forwards. The Soviet Notes are not good and I am not defending them, but the total correspondence is a pretty unsatisfactory affair. Instead of this long correspondence, we should get round the table and see how far we can get. We have heard all about the Palais Rose and of the mournful small change of history in the past. We do not want to repeat that, but we must make fresh attempts to get things moving if we are to hold our heads up before history.
I ask that the Government should accelerate their movements and stiffen their resolve, and let us have in the vacation news that people are at last meeting round a table to discuss these matters. Let us, meanwhile, not pursue the ratification of these instruments, but

let us wait to see how in all these respects the autumn situation appears.
I say quite frankly that we should not commit ourselves one way or the other in this House until we see what happens between now and the re-assembly of the House. It is a question of timing, and of intelligent judgment of the new situation as it will appear in the middle of October when the House meets. I have spoken, I hope temperately, for the Amendment, and have criticised also I hope temperately the Government's policy. When this debate ends we shall take the matter to a Division. The Amendment contains a clear and firm restatement of our view. It can be understood by every one, except, of course, those whose professional interest it is to be dull.
If our Amendment is rejected, we shall challenge a second Division on the Government Motion and we shall go on record today against the Government's attempt to obtain a premature ratification of these documents without, as we think, the necessary safeguards and conditions which I have indicated, without having really got down to those four-Power talks with the Russians which may make all the difference between peace and war and—as we believe, and as I said earlier—quite contrary to the general feeling of this country, which does not want to see this matter rushed through.
That being so, we claim that it would be wisdom even now—and what I have said is contingent, of course, upon the Foreign Secretary's reply—if the right hon. Gentleman wants national unity and a bi-partisan approach he can get it quite easily. He need only say that, having regard to the run of the debate, and having listened with attention and sympathy to what has been said by hon. Members on all sides, the Government will not proceed with their Motion today.

3.30 p.m.

The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Anthony Eden): I think the House will agree that we have had two days of a remarkable debate—remarkable in many senses of the word. I am not going to pretend that I agree with all the contentions that the right hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Dalton) has just put forward. Indeed, frankly, as I listened to one part of his speech,


I could not quite understand how the views which he was then expressing could possibly coincide with the policy that the late Government were pursuing until a comparatively short while ago. It seemed so entirely remote from what has actually happened.
I know the right hon. Gentleman's strong feelings on this subject of Germany, and he is not the only one who has them. They are not confined to one party or to one section of this House, or indeed to one of Germany's neighbours. I really do not think that we can approach this problem solely on the basis of memories. I agree that memories must not be left out of account. We none of us leave them out of account, but at some stage or another and in some way or another we have to try to rebuild another Europe.
I claim no credit for E.D.C. It was in existence before I ever got to the Foreign Office. It has to do with European statesmen, and it has to do to some extent with our predecessors in office. But why I always liked it and still like it is because it seems to me to create the possibility of this European fellowship between France and Germany in particular, which so far has defied every effort of statesmen, generation after generation. That is why I was disturbed —if the right hon. Gentleman will forgive me saying so—during what was a very able speech, by the terms which crept in all the time about Germany.
I do not think Germany can permanently be treated in terms of memories of the past. We cannot permanently occupy Germany. We discussed that yesterday. We cannot do it with this great nation, and if we try it we shall sooner or later come up against the same kind of problem as we had in the 30's. Everybody said, "Why did you not stop Germany re-arming?" Why was Germany not stopped re-arming? Because nobody had the will to do it and some people thought, "If other people have a lot of arms, why should Germany not have some?" That kind of argument begins to be operative and it paralyses the will of the other nations.
We have no choice, if we are to lay the foundations for Europe, but to try to bring Germany into the family of nations or permanently to ostracise her.
There is no middle course. I want to try to draw her into this Western family. E.D.C. tries to do it, and so does this contractual agreement. So did the late Government try to do it. But I did not think that the end of the right hon. Gentleman's speech was in tune with that. It was more of an indictment of E.D.C. and all that it stands for.
The right hon. Gentleman told us about these formations and divisions which he viewed with alarm. So far as I know, these formations have grown no larger since this Government took office. It is not for us to decide how large individual units shall be; it is for the six Powers themselves to do that. So far as I know of the approximate size of the formations, I believe the number is 14,000; I think they are called groupements—something like a small division. They have not swollen since I have been in the Foreign Office compared with the size they were before.
That was the policy which the right hon. Gentleman's party were carrying through in the life of the late Government, and I think he did less than justice to the continuity that we are trying to establish. He said that he was now freer in opposition. No doubt, that is true. but even when hon. Members are freer in opposition they still have certain responsibilities for their actions when in the Government. I maintain—and I do not shift from this position—that every phase of what we have done has been carried through not because it was the policy of the late Government but because we thought it was the correct policy in every one of these fields.
May I mention another point which the right hon. Gentleman touched upon—the question of why we want this ratification now. The hon. Member for Leeds. South-East (Mr. D. Healey) made a charge against me. He said that I had pushed forward the ratification. He said that it was the Government's duty
not to force the Opposition into a position of voting against a major issue of policy on genuinely-held, sincere and rational grounds.
That is rather an original definition of a Government's duty. The Government also has a duty to discharge what they think is their responsibility in international affairs. It is important not to inconvenience the Opposition, but that is not the only duty of the Government.
Then the hon. Gentleman went on with this charge. He said that I was
sacrificing a tactical position of great national advantage in world affairs in the vain hope of a petty party advantage at the present time."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 31st July, 1952; Vol. 504. c. 1805.]
I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman really thinks that, but if he does, I think it is perhaps explained by the fact that he has not been in this House very long. If he had been a good judge of petty party advantage I do not think he would recommend me to pursue the course that we are now pursuing.
Let us be frank about it. If the Government were seeking party advantage at this moment, would we really be asking for this decision now? Would we not go away and allow hon. Members to continue for many more weeks the discussion to which we have been listening for the last two days? Would we not allow them to continue it with gusto at their party conference or anywhere else on any other occasion and then come back in October and put them to the inconvenience of having another discussion on this matter and seeing what new Amendments they can find to paper over the cracks which show? I am just as good a party man as anybody else: at least, I want to be. But I am sure that if I were playing party politics I should like another one or two of these debates on the same kind of subject.
I think hon. Members with more experience than the hon. Member for Leeds, South-East will probably agree—I think it is to their party advantage, although I do not think that is awfully important —that we should decide this question now. I had to take account—and I assure the House that I weighed this up very carefully—whether the decision should be put off until late October. I had to consider what would be the effect in Europe.
After all, the normal practice is that two months or so after a major agreement, this House is asked to ratify. I have a number of examples here. I do not wish to weary the House with them, but that has been the practice on practically every recent occasion. The Brussels Treaty at the time of the late Government was ratified in two and a half months after signature; the Atlantic Pact was ratified in two months; even

the Versailles Treaty—a compendious document, whatever one may think of its value otherwise—was ratified in three months; Locarno, in four months. The suggestion here was that the period should be, not two months, but five. That is what it would have meant—waiting until after the Recess.
These hon. Members in their consciences must make their own judgment on this, but I am absolutely certain that if we had not taken this step now and we had waited until October, opinion in Europe would have said, "There are those British again; they do not really mean to come along in this business at all." That is a perfectly fair position. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) and the hon. Member for Coventry, East (Mr. Crossman) are against this whole business, and I am not arguing with them. I am arguing with an Amendment which favours this whole business but says that this is the wrong time.
There are so many controversies going on that it is difficult to get the angle. What I am dealing with is the official Amendment and not with what I readily admit is the real Amendment of the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes). That much more truly represents the greater part of the speeches to which we have listened during the last two days. I am dealing with the official Amendment. I can see no justification for a five months' delay.
The right hon. Gentleman made one other comment about the German army and the general staff. He said that the larger the formation the greater the freedom and the greater the risk of a re-emergence of a German national army. But there has been no fundamental change in this position since we took office. The strength of the guarantee does not lie in the size of the formation, be it a brigade or a division; it lies in the integrated services and in the fact that if the E.D.C. is worked as it is now proposed, each division will be dependent upon services and upon infrastructure on an international basis.
It is perfectly true that at one time or another one Government may seek to break away. That would be a very grim situation, but if they did break away they could not say, "Here is my national army: I have all that I require"—still


less when all the munitions which are being prepared for the E.D.C. are being made on an international basis by the six countries concerned, on instructions from the Board which controls the whole thing. Unless we say that on no account shall Germany play a part with us in any military arrangement in Europe, my conclusion is that this is the best kind of arrangement we can make to give the maximum sense of security and confidence to us all. More than that I do not claim for it.
Several things have been said about what Mr. Bevin thought or did not think. I am not going into that question. It would be rather impertinent for me, not being in the same party as he was, to do that. Another reason why I do not want to do that is because I think that that issue was faithfully dealt with by the hon. Member for Woolwich, East (Mr. Mayhew) in his speech last night. I hope that those hon. Members who did not hear it will now read it, because it is a severe but, I think, compelling reply to the remarks which were made about Mr. Bevin by the hon. Member for Coventry, East. All I will say about it is that, as far as I knew Mr. Bevin, he was not a man to take action in international affairs as a result of pressure from anybody.
If I may give my own opinion, I think it is much more true that Mr. Bevin—like myself and, I dare say, many others—came to the conclusions which are embodied in these agreements after many hesitations, hut, having come to these conclusions, I judge that Mr. Bevin would have been determined to see them through. The truth is that in foreign policy one very rarely gets a free or agreeable choice. One almost always has to choose between two disadvantages. This is one of those occasions, and I do not pretend to conceal it; but as between these two disadvantages I have little doubt what our decision should be.
The right hon. Gentleman asked me one or two questions about finance which I shall try briefly to answer. Before he came into the House, the right hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Bellenger) reminded the House—and it should be recalled that there is some misunderstanding here—that throughout the time of the occupation our troops in Germany have been paid for and equipped from British sources. The German contribution has

been in regard to services, labour and capital installation. They have undertaken to continue their contribution in that respect—as I remarked to the right hon. Gentleman yesterday—under Article 3 of the Finance Convention.
What we shall have to do is to negotiate the amount of that contribution. I made clear in my answers—and I think it is almost platitudinous—that two things are to happen. One is that Germany is going to increase her defence expenditure in respect of herself and others as a result of these agreements, and the second is that as her own expenditure rises it is axiomatic that there will be less available for other purposes, including the services which we have hitherto enjoyed.
I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that the balance of payments position has to be protected, and we have made it absolutely plain that we cannot carry a greater balance of payments burden than we are carrying at present. That has been made plain to everybody. How can this be adjusted? It can be done in a number of ways—by reducing the money we are at present spending in respect of the German levy; by reducing the amount spent on infrastructure, and by reducing our off-shore purchases. There are a number of ways in which this might be done. But when the right hon. Gentleman says that we ought to postpone this decision until we get that picture clear he is asking for a postponement well into next year.

Mr. Dalton: Not necessarily.

Mr. Eden: Probably. I will tell him why. It is because this decision, as he knows, is a matter that goes for review to the "Three Wise Men" of N.A.T.O., and we shall be pretty lucky to get a conclusion by December or by January of next year. The right hon. Gentleman is asking us not to make up our minds until we know what is the position for 1953 or 1954, which we cannot hope to know until January or February next year. We cannot wait until then. The argument that we should wait until the financial position is clearer is not acceptable at all.
The House ought to bear in mind that the situation which faces us in Germany is that our difficulties will only arise as Germany begins to make a larger contribution herself, not only militarily but


financially and industrially. Do hon. Members opposite feel absolutely convinced that, if these agreements are not ratified, we can go on indefinitely getting as much out of occupation costs from Germany as we have been doing up to the present? If we say to Germany, "After all, we do not think we shall go ahead with this business," do hon. Members believe that we are going to get exactly the same amount from Germany? I should not like to count upon that over a long period.
Whether or not we make these agreements, in the years ahead we must face the question how we are going to pay for the services we have to meet and which the Germans are now providing for us in Germany. I admit that this is one of the most stubborn difficulties in the whole business. I am deeply conscious of it, as is the whole Cabinet. We have had many discussions about it.
We are quite aware of the proper warnings which were given by the previous Government, and the right hon. Gentleman can be quite sure that we have repeated them more than once. It is quite easy to repeat the warnings of other people. It is the easiest part of diplomacy. But the problems will still be there and we must find a way to ensure that, as a result of any arrangements which are made, we do not have to carry a heavier burden of foreign exchange than we are doing at present.
On the question of the delay in ratification. I have one other argument to present. How long do those who have put down this Amendment want us to delay? The right hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) did not say. An agreement was entered into at Washington on 14th September and this suggestion of further delay and further delay in ratification does not fit in very well with the terms of that agreement. The communiqué issued by the right hon. Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. H. Morrison) and his two colleagues in connection with that agreement was quoted by the right hon. Member for Bassetlaw. It said:
The Foreign Ministers have now instructed the High Commission to proceed to negotiate with the Federal Government which will, it is hoped, culminate in early agreements between the four Governments to enter into effect together with the agreement for German participation…

and so on. "Early agreement"—that, last September, does not quite fit in with saying that we cannot look at ratification until after we know the financial position for the year 1953–54. I am certain that if the right hon. Gentleman were here now, he would make these arguments I am making with even more force than I am trying to put into them.
I have only two more observations to make before I conclude. The first is about Four-Power talks, about which there have been a number of comments in the debate and to which the right hon. Gentleman referred just now. Let no one think that once this vote is taken Four-Power talks will be prevented by it. Of course, there is no question of that. If I had believed that and thought that this vote would prevent Four-Power talks, I should have thought it a very weighty argument for delaying ratification. But it is my conviction that ratification of these agreements is more likely to further than to hinder the prospects of an agreement with the Soviet Union. Of course, we can still talk to them after we ratify.
It is a travesty to suggest that we are asking the House today to stop or prejudice the Four-Power talks. I have heard hon. Members say more than once that we are likely to get better results from Soviet Russia if we go into those talks with a solid basis of unity and achievement behind us and in a mood of determination. I repudiate the suggestion that we are lukewarm about these Four-Power talks.
Let me try to sum up what these Notes have done. I think this is a fair presentation of the course of the correspondence. There was the first Soviet suggestion in the Note of 10th March, to which the right hon. Gentleman referred in an interjection. It was the discussion of a peace treaty with the direct participation of an all-German Government expressing the will of the German people. That was the first proposal. We replied to that on 25th March, as we thought, bringing the issue straight down to reality, because we said that the formation of an all-German Government was possible only on the basis of free elections. That is surely right. We suggested a United Nations commission for the purpose, which we had proposed setting up at U.N.O. We also asked the Soviet Government what was their view with regard to the freedom


of that Government to negotiate once it was set up.
In answer, they agreed that free elections ought to be considered, but said that the United Nations commission was contrary to the Charter—I never quite understood why, but we accepted that. They said we ought to have a Four-Power commission to do this and they denied Germany's right to enter into an alliance. We asked two questions; we asked whether the new all-German Government would be free to participate in the negotiations. The first step was to have free elections. We preferred the United Nations commission; we did not think a Four-Power commission was right because it would be judge in its own cause. We also had in mind the experience of trying to get Four-Power agreement ever since the war. We said we would accept any form of impartial commission. Was not that a fair answer? The Russians gave no answer to our question about freedom for the German Government, but merely repeated that they wanted a Four-Power commission, and no other.
Then there was the final Note. We explained that we could not accept a Four-Power commission—and we cannot, because from all past experience we know what that would lead to. But we offered a meeting at once. I repeat that we are ready for that now if they desire to discuss the membership of any commission and the functions and authority of that commission. Is not that a fair offer? To that Note we have not had any reply. It may be that we have acted slowly and argued, but the position now is clear enough. I repeat, we are ready at any time for the discussions and we will discuss any commission to supervise, to prepare for these free elections, but we cannot go into a discussion for a Four-Power commission, because we know exactly what the inevitable consequence of that always is.
I am sorry that this reply to the debate is disjointed, but I am trying to answer the points as they were made in the debate. I have one other comment about the re-armament of France and the Western countries, which was raised by the right hon. Gentleman just now. I do not know whether he noted a speech which M. Pleven made in, I think, June

this year in Paris, when he gave an account of the development of the French divisions and said that in August, 1950, France had only five under-strength divisions in Europe equipped with weapons left over from the last war. Now, in mid-1952, those divisions were doubled in strength. There were five new ones, and two others would be created in October, making 12 in all. That was M. Pleven's account of the development of the French Army.
As to material, I should like to say this. Deliveries of military equipment to Europe from the United States in the year ending 30th June next year are expected to be three times what they were in the year ending 30th June this year. That is, of course, before Germany is in a position to take any equipment in important proportions at all. On this basis, the total deliveries to European N.A.T.O. countries by 30th June next year as voted by Congress, should be in the neighbourhood of 6,000 million dollars. I really cannot see on that basis how the right hon. Gentleman can say that the former Prime Minister's condition that the N.A.T.O. Powers should be re-armed first has not been fulfilled. It seems to me that it has been fulfilled and over-fulfilled. If the House wants more figures, I could give them.
I conclude by saying that there are two votes which the House has to take this evening. On the first one, I do not think that we complain very much if hon. Members think it necessary to put down the Amendment. I do not want to make a party point; it was obviously desirable to get the greatest possible number for the most limited possible course. I make no complaint about that, and I have no complaint about hon. Members going into the Lobby against us.
I make no complaint of those who have always been against this policy continuing to vote against it; but where I shall complain, and feel I have cause to complain, is if those who are responsible for the policy we are carrying out vote against the Motion when it is put. Not one single word that has been said in this debate has gone to show that in anything we have done, or that I have done in my stewardship of the Foreign Office, we have departed from the policies, intentions and


purposes which I inherited from my predecessor.
It is quite possible to argue, if hon. Members like, on timing, and to get together and vote on that, but having done that, I beg the right hon. Gentleman who leads the Opposition to consider what will be the view in Europe if on the definite, positive Motion, which, after all, embodies the words of the documents for which he and his colleagues were responsible, they vote

against it. I hope that they will be content with the first vote, which all will accept with good humour, and that they will not indulge in the second, which might be one that would be misunderstood and certainly could not be justified in history.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."

The House divided: Ayes, 294; Noes, 260.

Division No. 229.]
AYES
[4.0 p.m.


Aitken, W. T.
Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S.)
Hudson, W. R. A. (Hull, N.)


Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)
Davidson, Viscountess
Hulbert, Wing Cmdr. N. J.


Alport, C. J. M.
Davies, Rt. Hn. Clement (Montgomery)
Hurd, A. R.


Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)
De la Bère, Sir Rupert
Hutchinson, Sir Geoffrey (Ilford, N.)


Amory, Heathcoat (Tiverton)
Deedes, W. F.
Hutchison, Lt.-Com. Clark (E'b'rgh W.)


Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J.
Digby, S. Wingfield
Hutchison, James (Scotstoun)


Arbuthnot, John
Dodds-Parker, A. D.
Hyde, Lt.-Col. H. M.


Ashton, H. (Chelmsford)
Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.
Hylton-Foster, H. B. H.


Assheton, Rt. Hon. R. (Blackburn, W.)
Donner, P. W.
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)


Astor, Hon. J. J. (Plymouth, Sutton)
Doughty, C. J. A.
Jennings, R.


Astor, Hon. W. W. (Bucks, Wycombe)
Drayson, G. B.
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)


Baker, P. A. D.
Drewe, C.
Johnson, Howard (Kemptown)


Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.
Dugdale, Rt. Hn. Sir T. (Richmond)
Jones, A. (Hall Green)


Baldwin, A. E.
Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.
Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W.


Banks, Col. C.
Eccles, Rt. Hon. D. M.
Kaberry, D.


Barber, Anthony
Eden, Rt. Hon. A.
Keeling, Sir Edward


Barlow, Sir John
Finlay, Graeme
Kerr, H. W. (Cambridge)


Baxter, A. B.
Fisher, Nigel
Lambert, Hon. G.


Beach, Maj. Hicks
Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F.
Lambton, Viscount


Beamish, Maj. Tufton
Fletcher-Cooke, C.
Langford-Holt, J. A.


Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)
Fort, R.
Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.


Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)
Foster, John
Leather, E. H. C.


Bennett, F. M. (Reading, N.)
Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.


Bennett, Sir Peter (Edgbaston)
Fraser, Sir Ian (Morecambe &amp; Lonsdale)
Legh, P. R. (Petersfield)


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir David Maxwell
Lennox-Boyd, Rt. Hon. A. T.


Bennett, William (Woodside)
Gage, C. H.
Lindsay, Martin


Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)
Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D. (Pollok)
Linstead, H. N.


Birch, Nigel
Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)
Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.)


Bishop, F. P.
Gammans, L. D.
Lloyd, Maj. Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)


Black, C. W.
Garner-Evans, E. H.
Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C.


Boothby, R. J. G.
George, Rt. Hon. Maj. G. Lloyd
Longden, Gilbert (Herts, S.W.)


Bossom, A. C.
Glyn, Sir Ralph
Low, A. R. W.


Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.
Godber, J. B.
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)


Boyle, Sir Edward
Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.
Lucas, P. B. (Brentford)


Braine, B. R.
Gower, H. R.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh


Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)
Graham, Sir Fergus
Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. O.


Braithwaite, Lt.-Cdr. G. (Bristol, N.W.)
Gridley, Sir Arnold
McAdden, S. J.


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H.
Grimond, J.
McCallum, Major D.


Brooke, Dryden (Hampstead)
Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)
McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S.


Brooman-White, R. C.
Hare, Hon. J. H.
Macdonald, Sir Peter (I. of Wight)


Browne, Jack (Govan)
Harris, Reader (Heston)
Mackeson, Brig. H. R.


Bullard, D. G.
Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)
McKibbin, A. J.


Bulloch, Capt. M.
Harvey, Air Cdre. A. V. (Macclesfield)
McKie, J. H. (Galloway)


Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.
Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)
Maclay, Rt. Hon. John


Butcher, H. W.
Harvie-Watt, Sir George
Maclean, Fitzroy


Butler, Rt. Hon. R. A. (Saffron Walden)
Hay, John
Macleod, Rt. Hon. Iain (Enfield, W.)


Carr, Robert (Mitcham)
Head, Rt. Hon. A. H.
MacLeod, John (Ross and Cromarty)


Cary, Sir Robert
Heald, Sir Lionel
Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)


Channon, H.
Henderson, John (Cathcart)
Macpherson, Maj. Niall (Dumfries)


Churchill, Rt. Hon. W. S.
Higgs, J. M. C.
Maitland, Comdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)


Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)
Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton)
Maitland, Patrick (Lanark)


Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W.)
Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)
Mannigham-Buller, Sir R. E.


Cole, Norman
Hirst, Geoffrey
Markham, Major S. F.


Colegate, W. A.
Holland-Martin, C. J.
Marlowe, A. A. H.


Conant, Maj. R. J. E.
Hollis, M. C.
Marples, A. E.


Cooper, Sqn. Ldr. Albert
Holmes, Sir Stanley (Harwich)
Marshall, Douglas (Bodmin)


Cooper-Key, E. M.
Holt, A. F.
Marshall, Sir Sidney (Sutton)


Craddock, Beresford (Speltherne)
Hope, Lord John
Maude, Angus


Cranborne, Viscount
Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.
Maudling, R.


Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.
Horobin, I. M.
Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C.


Crouch, R. F.
Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Florence
Medlicott, Brig. F.


Crowder, John E. (Finchley)
Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)
Mellor, Sir John


Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)
Howard, Greville (St. Ives)
Molson, A. H. E.


Cuthbert, W. N.
Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)
Monckton, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter




Moore, Lt.-Col. Sir Thomas
Roberts, Peter (Heeley)
Teeling W.


Morrison, John (Salisbury)
Robson-Brown, W.
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. P. L. (Hereford)


Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.
Rcdgers, John (Sevenoaks)
Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)


Nabarro, G. D. N.
Roper, Sir Harold
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)


Nicholls, Harmar
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard
Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon, W.)


Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)
Russell, R. S.
Thorneycroft, Rt. Hn. Peter (Monmouth)


Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E.)
Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.
Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N.


Nield, Basil (Chester)
Salter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur
Tilney, John


Noble, Comdr. A. H. P
Sandys, Rt. Hon. D.
Touche, Sir Gordon


Nugent, G. R. H.
Schofield, Ll.-Col. W. (Rochdale)
Turner, H. F. L.


Nutting, Anthony
Scott, R. Donald
Turton, R. H.


Oakshott, H. D.
Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.
Tweedsmuir, Lady


Odey, G. W.
Shepherd, William
Vane, W. M. F.


O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Antrim, N.)
Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.
Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.


Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.
Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter
Vosper, D. F.


Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Smithers, Sir Waldron (Orpington)
Wade, D. W.


Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon N.)
Smyth, Brig. J. G. (Norwood)
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Osborne, C.
Snadden, W. McN.
Walker-Smith, D. C.


Partridge, E.
Soames, Capt. C.
Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)


Peake, Rt. Hon. O.
Spearman, A. C. M.
Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)


Perkins, W. R. D.
Speir, R. M.
Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.


Peto, Brig. C. H. M.
Spence, H. R. (Aberdeenshire, W.)
Watkinson, H. A.


Payton, J. W. W.
Spens, Sir Patrick (Kensington, S.)
Webbe, Sir H. (London &amp; Westminster)


Pickthorn, K. W. M.
Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard
Wellwood, W.


Pilkington, Capt. R. A.
Stevens, G. P.
White, Baker (Canterbury)


Pitman, I. J.
Steward, W. A. (Woolwich, W.)
Williams, Rt. Hon. Charles (Torquay)


Powell, J. Enoch
Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)
Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)


Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)
Stoddart-Scolt, Col. M.
Williams, Sir Herbert (Croydon, E.)


Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.
Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)
Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)


Profumo, J. D.
Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)
Wills, G.


Raikes, H. V.
Studholme, H. G.
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Rayner, Brig. R.
Summers, G. S.
Wood, Hon. R.


Redmayne, M.
Sutcliffe, H.



Remnant, Hon. P.
Taylor, Charles (Eastbourne)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Renton, D. L. M.
Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)
Mr. Buchan-Hepburn and Mr. Heath




NOES


Acland, Sir Richard
Daines, P.
Hardy, E. A.


Adams, Richard
Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.
Hargreaves, A.


Albu, A. H.
Darling, George (Hillsborough)
Harrison, J. (Nottingham, E.)


Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)
Davies, A. Edward (Stoke, N.)
Hastings, S.


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)
Hayman, F. H.


Anderson, Alexander (Motherwell)
Davies, Harold (Leek)
Healey, Denis (Leeds, S.E.)


Anderson, Frank (Whitehaven)
Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Rowley Regis)


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Deer, G.
Herbison, Miss M.


Awbery, S. S.
Delargy, H. J.
Hewitson, Capt. M.


Bacon, Miss Alice
Dodds, N. N.
Hobson, C. R.


Baird, J.
Donnelly, D. L.
Holman, P.


Balfour, A
Driberg, T. E. N.
Holmes, Horace (Hemsworth)


Barnes, Rt. Hon A. J.
Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John (W. Bromwich)
Houghton, Douglas


Bartley, P.
Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Hoy, J. H.


Bence, C. R.
Edelman, M.
Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)


Benson, G.
Edwards, John (Brighouse)
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)


Beswick, F.
Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
Hynd, H. (Accrington)


Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)
Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)


Bing, G. H. C.
Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)


Blackburn, F.
Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)
Irving, W. J. (Wood Green)


Blenkinsop, A.
Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)
Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.


Blyton, W. R.
Ewart, R.
Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.


Boardman, H.
Fernyhough, E.
Jeger, George (Goole)


Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.
Field, W. J.
Jenkins, R. H. (Stechford)


Bowden, H. W.
Fienburgh, W.
Johnson, James (Rugby)


Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth
Finch, H. J.
Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)


Brockway, A. F.
Fletcher, Eric (Islington, E.)
Jones, David (Hartlepool)


Brook, Dryden (Halifax)
Follick, M.
Jones, Frederick Elwyn (West Ham, S.)


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Foot, M. M.
Jones, Jack (Rotherham)


Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Forman, J. C.
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)


Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Keenan, W.


Burke, W. A.
Freeman, John (Watford)
Kenyon, C.


Burton, Miss F. E.
Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.)
Gibson, C. W.
King, Dr. H. M.


Callaghan, L. J.
Gooch, E. G.
Kinley, J.


Carmichael, J.
Gordon-Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
Lee, Frederick (Newton)


Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Greenwood, Anthony (Rossendale)
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)


Champion, A. J.
Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Arthur (Wakefield)
Lever, Harold (Cheetham)


Chapman, W. D.
Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.
Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)


Chetwynd, G. R.
Grey, C. F.
Lewis, Arthur


Clunie, J.
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Lindgren, G. S.


Cocks, F. S.
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (L'anelly)
Lipton. Lt.-Col. M.


Collick, W. A.
Griffiths, William (Exchange)
MacColl, J. E.


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)
McInnes, J.


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Hall, Rt. Hon. G'envil (Colne Valley)
McKay, John (Wallsend)


Crosland, C. A. R.
Hall, John (Gateshead, W.)
McLeavy, F.


Crossman, R. H. S.
Hamilton, W. W.
MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)


Cullen, Mrs. A.
Hannan. W.
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)







Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Pryde, D. J.
Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)


Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Rankin, John
Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)


Mann, Mrs. Jean
Reeves, J.
Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)


Manuel, A. C.
Reid, William (Camlachie)
Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)


Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.
Rhodes, H.
Timmons, J.


Mayhew, C. P.
Robens, Rt. Hon. A.
Tomney, F.


Mellish, R. J.
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Turner-Samuels, M.


Messer, F.
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)
Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn


Mikardo, Ian
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)
Usborne, H. C.


Mitchison, G. R.
Ross, William
Viant, S. P.


Monslow, W.
Royle, C.
Wallace, H. W.


Moody, A. S.
Schofield, S. (Barnsley)
Watkins, T. E.


Morgan, Dr. H. B. W.
Shackleton, E. A. A.
Webb, Rt. Hon. M. (Bradford, C.)


Morley, R.
Shawcross, Rt. Hon. Sir Hartley
Weitzman, D.


Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.
Wells, Percy (Faversham)


Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, S.)
Short, E. W.
Wells, William (Walsall)


Mort, D. L.
Shurmer, P. L. E.
West, D. G.


Moyle, A.
Silverman, Julius (Erdington)
White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)


Murray, J. D.
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)
White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)


Nally, W.
Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.


Neal, Harold (Bolsolver)
Slater, J.
Wigg, George


O'Brien, T.
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)
Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B.


Oldfield, W. H.
Smith, Norman (Nottingham, S.)
Wilkins, W. A.


Orbach, M.
Snow, J. W.
Willey, Frederick (Sunderland, N.)


Oswald, T.
Sorensen, R. W.
Williams, David (Neath)


Padley, W. E.
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank
Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Abertillery)


Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)
Sparks, J. A.
Williams, Ronald (Wigan)


Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)
Steele, T.
Williams, W. R. (Droylsden)


Pannell, Charles
Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)
Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith, S.)


Pargiter, G. A.
Stokes, Rt. Hon. R. R.
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)


Parker, J.
Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.
Winterbottom, Ian (Nottingham, C.)


Paton, J.
Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)
Winterbottom, Richard (Brightside)


Pearson, A.
Stross, Dr. Barnett
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Peart, T. F.
Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.
Wyatt, W. L.


Plummer, Sir Leslie
Swingler, S. T.
Yates, V. F.


Poole, C. C.
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)
Younger, Rt. Hon. K.


Porter, G.
Taylor, John (West Lothian)



Price, Joseph (Westhoughton)
Taylor, Rt. Hon. Robert (Morpeth)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)
Thomas, David (Aberdare)
Mr. Popplewell and


Proctor, W. T.
Thomas, George (Cardiff)
Mr. Kenneth Robinson.

Main Question put.

The House divided: Ayes, 293: Noes. 253.

Division No. 230.]
AYES
[4.11 p.m.


Aitken, W. T.
Brown, Jack (Govan)
Eccles, Rt. Hon. D. M.


Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)
Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T.
Eden, Rt. Hon. A.


Alport, C. J. M.
Bullard, D. G.
Finlay, Graeme


Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)
Bullock, Capt. M.
Fisher, Nigel


Amory, Heathcoat (Tiverton)
Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.
Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F.


Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J.
Butcher, H. W.
Fletcher-Cooke, C.


Arbuthnot, John
Butler, Rt. Hon. R. A. (Saffron Walden)
Fort, R.


Ashton, H. (Chelmsford)
Carr, Robert (Mitcham)
Foster, John


Assheton, Rt. Hon. R. (Blackburn, W.)
Cary, Sir Robert
Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)


Astor, Hon. J. J. (Plymouth, Sutton)
Channon, H.
Fraser, Sir Ian (Morecambe &amp; Lonsdale)


Astor, Hon. W. W. (Bucks, Wycombe)
Churchill, Rt. Hon. W. S.
Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir David Maxwell


Baker, P. A. D.
Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)
Gage, C. H.


Baldock, Lt.-Comdr. J. M.
Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portmouth, W.)
Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D. (Pollok)


Baldwin, A. E.
Cole, Norman
Gammans, L. D.


Banks, Col. C.
Colegate, W. A.
Garner-Evans, E. H.


Barber, Anthony
Conant, Maj. R. J. E.
George, Rt. Hon. Maj. G. Lloyd


Barlow, Sir John
Cooper, Sqn. Ldr. Albert
Glyn, Sir Ralph


Baxter, A. B.
Cooper-Key, E. M.
Godber, J. B.


Beamish, Maj. Tufton
Craddock, Bereford (Spelthorne)
Gomme-Duncan, Col. A


Beach, Maj. Hicks
Cranborne, Viscount
Gower, H. R.


Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)
Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.
Graham, Sir Fergus


Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)
Crouch, R. F.
Gridley, Sir Arnold


Bennett, F. M. (Reading, N.)
Crowder, John E. (Finchley)
Grimond, J.


Bennett, Sir Peter (Edgbaston)
Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)
Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
Cuthbert, W. N.
Hare, Hon. J. H.


Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)
Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S.)
Harris, Reader (Heston)


Birch, Nigel
Davidson, Viscountess
Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)


Bishop, F. P.
Davies, Rt. Hn. Clement (Montgomery)
Harvey, Air Cdre. A. V. (Macclesfield)


Black, C. W.
De la Bère, Sir Rupert
Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)


Boothby, R. J. G.
Deedes, W. F.
Harvie-Watt, Sir George


Bossom, A. C.
Digby, S. Wingfield
Hay, John


Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.
Dodds-Parker, A. D.
Head, Rt. Hon. A. H.


Boyle, Sir Edward
Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.
Heald, Sir Lionel


Braine, B. R.
Donner, P. W.
Henderson, John (Cathcart)


Bratihwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)
Doughty, C. J. A.
Higgs, J. M. C.


Braithwaite, Lt.-Cdr. G. (Bristol, N.W.)
Drayson, G. B.
Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton)


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H.
Drewe, G.
Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)


Brooke, Henry (Hampstead)
Dugdale, Rt. Hon. Sir T. (Richmond)
Hirst, Geoffrey


Brooman-White, R. C.
Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.
Holland-Martin, C. J.




Hollis, M. C.
Maitland, Patrick (Lanark)
Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.


Holmes, Sir Stanley (Harwich)
Manningham-Buller, Sir R. E.
Shepherd, William


Holt, A. F.
Markham, Major S. F.
Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)


Hope, Lord John
Marlowe, A. A. H.
Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter


Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.
Marples, A. E.
Smithers, Sir Waldron (Orpington)


Horobin, I. M.
Marshall, Douglas (Bodmin)
Smyth, Brig. J. G. (Norwood)


Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Florence
Marshall, Sir Sidney (Sutton)
Snadden, W. McN.


Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)
Maude, Angus
Soames, Capt. C.


Howard, Greville (St. Ives)
Maudling, R.
Spearman, A. C. M.


Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)
Maydon, Lt.Comdr. S. L. C.
Speir, R. M.


Hudson, W. R. A. (Hull, N.)
Medlicott, Brig. F.
Spence, H. R. (Aberdeenshire, W.)


Hulbert, Wing Cmdr. N. J.
Mellor, Sir John
Spens, Sir Patrick (Kensington, S.)


Hurd, A. R.
Molson, A. H. E.
Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard


Hutchinson, Sir Geoffrey (Ilford, N.)
Monckton, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter
Stevens, G. P.


Hutchison, Lt.-Com. Clark (Eb'rgh W.
Moore, Lt.-Col. Sir Thomas
Steward, W. A. (Woolwich, W.)


Hutchison, James (Scotstoun)
Morrison, John (Salisbury)
Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)


Hyde, Lt.-Col. H. M.
Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.


Hylton-Foster, H. B. H.
Nabarro, G. D. N.
Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)


Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Nicholls, Harmar
Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)


Jennings, R.
Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)
Studholme, H. G.


Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E.)
Summers, G. S.


Johnson, Howard (Kemptown)
Nield, Basil (Chester)
Sutcliffe, H.


Jones, A. (Hall Green)
Noble, Cmdr. A. H. P.
Taylor, Charles (Eastbourne)


Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W.
Nugent, G. R. H.
Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)


Kaberry, D.
Nutting, Anthony
Teeling, W.


Keeling, Sir Edward
Oakshott, H. D.
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. P. L. (Hereford)


Kerr, H. W. (Cambridge)
Odey, G. W.
Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)


Lambert, Hon. G.
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Antrim, N.)
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)


Lambton, Viscount
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.
Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon, W.)


Langford-Holt, J. A.
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Thorneycroft, Rt. Hn. Peter (Monmouth)


Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.
Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.)
Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N.


Leather, E. H. C.
Osborne, C.
Tilney, John


Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Partridge, E.
Touche, Sir Gordon


Legh, P. R. (Petersfield)
Peaks, Rt. Hon. O.
Turner, H. F. L.


Lennox-Boyd, Rt. Hon. A. T.
Perkins, W. R. D.
Turton, R. H.


Lindsay, Martin
Peto, Brig. C. H. M.
Tweedsmuir, Lady


Linstead, H. N.
Peyton, J. W. W.
Vane, W. M. F.


Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Pickthorn, K. W. M.
Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.


Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)
Pilkington, Capt. R. A.
Vosper, D. F.


Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C.
Pitman, I. J.
Wade, D. W.


Longden, Gilbert (Herts, S.W.)
Powell, J. Enoch
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Low, A. R. W.
Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)
Walker-Smith, D. C.


Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.
Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)


Lucas, P. B. (Brentford)
Profumo, J. D.
Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)


Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Raikes, H. V.
Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.


Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. O.
Rayner, Brig. R.
Watkinson, H. A.


McAdden, S. J.
Redmayne, M.
Webbe, Sir H. (London &amp; Westminster)


McCallum, Major D.
Remnant, Hon. P.
Wellwood, W.


McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S.
Renton, D. L. M.
White, Baker (Canterbury)


Macdonald, Sir Peter (I. of Wight)
Roberts, Peter (Heeley)
Williams, Rt. Hon. Charles (Torquay)


Mackeson, Brig. H. R.
Robson-Brown, W.
Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)


McKibbin, A. J.
Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)
Williams, Sir Herbert (Croydon, E.)


McKie, J. H. (Galloway)
Roper, Sir Harold
Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)


Maclay, Rt. Hon. John
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard
Wills, G.


Maclean, Fitzroy
Russell, R. S.
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Macleod, Rt. Hon. Iain (Enfield. W.)
Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.
Wood, Hon. R.


MacLeod, John (Ross and Cromarty)
Salter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur



Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)
Sandys, Rt. Hon. D.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Macpherson, Maj. Niall (Dumfries)
Schofield, Lt.-Col. W. (Rochdale)
Mr. Heath and


Maitland, Comdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)
Scott, R. Donald
Mr. T. G. D. Galbraith.




NOES


Acland, Sir Richard
Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.
Crossman, R. H. S.


Adams, Richard
Bowden, H. W.
Cullen, Mrs. A.


Albu, A. H.
Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth
Daines, P.


Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)
Brockway, A. F.
Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Brook, Dryden (Halifax)
Darling, George (Hillsborough)


Anderson, Alexander (Motherwell)
Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Davies, A. Edward (Stoke, N.)


Anderson, Frank (Whitehaven)
Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Davies, Harold (Leek)


Awbery, S. S.
Burke, W. A.
Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)


Bacon, Miss Alice
Burton, Miss F. E.
Deer, G.


Baird, J.
Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.)
Delargy, H. J.


Balfour, A.
Callaghan, L. J.
Dodds, N. N.


Bartley, P.
Carmichael, J.
Donnelly, D. L.


Bence, C. R.
Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Driberg, T. E. N.


Benson, G.
Champion, A. J.
Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John (W. Bromwich)


Beswick, F.
Chapman, W. D.
Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.


Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)
Chetwynd, G. R.
Edelman, M.


Bing, G. H. C.
Clunie, J.
Edwards, John (Brighouse)


Blackburn, F.
Collick, P. H.
Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)


Blenkinsop, A.
Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)


Blyton, W. R.
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)


Boardman, H.
Crosland, C. A. R.
Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)







Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)
Lever, Harold (Cheetham)
Shurmer, P. L. E.


Ewart, R.
Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)
Silverman, Julius (Erdington)


Fernyhough, E.
Lewis, Arthur
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)


Field, W. J.
Lindgren, G. S.
Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)


Fienburgh, W.
Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.
Slater, J.


Finch, H. J.
MacColl, J. E.
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)


Fletcher, Eric (Islington, E.)
Mclnnes, J.
Smith, Norman (Nottingham, S.)


Follick, M.
McKay, John (Wallsend)
Snow, J. W.


Foot, M. M.
MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)
Sorensen, R. W.


Forman, J. C.
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Frasar, Thomas (Hamilton)
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Sparks, J. A.


Freeman, John (Watford)
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield E.)
Steele, T.


Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.
Mann, Mrs. Jean
Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)


Gibson, C. W.
Manuel, A. C.
Stokes, Rt. Hon. R. R.


Gooch, E. G.
Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.
Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.


Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
Mayhew, C. P.
Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)


Greenwood, Anthony (Rossendale)
Mellish, R. J.
Stross, Dr. Barnett


Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Arthur (Wakefield)
Messer, F.
Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.


Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.
Mikardo, Ian
Swingler, S. T.


Grey, C. F.
Mitchison, G. R.
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Monslow, W.
Taylor, John (West Lothian)


Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Moody, A. S.
Taylor, Rt. Hon. Robert (Morpeth)


Griffiths, William (Exchange)
Morgan, Dr. H. B. W.
Thomas, David (Aberdare)


Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)
Morley, R.
Thomas, George (Cardiff)


Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)
Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)


Hall, John (Gateshead, W.)
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, S.)
Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)


Hamilton, W. W.
Mort, D. L.
Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)


Hannan, W.
Moyle, A.
Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)


Hardy, E. A.
Murray, J. D.
Timmons, J.


Hargreaves, A.
Nally, W.
Tomney, F.


Harrison, J. (Nottingham, E.)
Neal, Harold (Bolsover)
Turner-Samuels, M.


Hastings, S.
O'Brien, T.
Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn


Hayman, F. H.
Oldfield, W. H.
Usborne, H. C.


Healey, Denis (Leeds, S.E.)
Orbach, M.
Viant, S. P.


Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Rowley Regis)
Oswald, T.
Wallace, H. W.


Herbison, Miss M.
Padley, W. E.
Watkins, T. E.


Hewitson, Capt. M.
Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)
Webb, Rt. Hon. M. (Bradford, C.)


Hobson, C. R.
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)
Weitzman, D.


Holman, P.
Pannell, Charles
Wells, Percy (Faversham)


Holmes, Horace (Hemsworth)
Pargiter, G. A.
Wells, William (Walsall)


Hoy, J. H.
Parker, J.
West, D. G.


Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)
Paton, J.
While, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)


Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Pearson, A.
White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)


Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Peart, T. F.
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.


Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Plummer, Sir Leslie
Wigg, George


Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Poole, C. C.
Wilkins, W. A.


Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Porter, G.
Willey, Frederick (Sunderland, N.)


Irving, W. J. (Wood Green)
Price, Joseph T. (Westhoughton)
Williams, David (Neath)


Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.
Proctor, W. T.
Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Abertillery)


Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.
Pryde, D. J.
Williams, Ronald (Wigan)


Jeger, George (Goole)
Rankin, John
Williams, W. R. (Droylsden)


Jenkins, R. H. (Stechford)
Reeves, J.
Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith, S.)


Johnson, James (Rugby)
Reid, William (Camlachie)
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)


Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)
Robens, Rt. Hon. A.
Winterbottom, Ian (Nottingham, C.)


Jones, David (Hartlepool)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Winterbottom, Richard (Brightside)


Jones, Frederick Elwyn (West Ham, S.)
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)
Wyatt, W. L.


Keenan, W.
Ross, William
Yates, V. F.


Kenyon, C.
Royle, C.
Younger, Rt. Hon. K.


Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Schofield, S. (Barnsley)



King, Dr. H. M.
Shackleton, E. A. A.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Kinley, J.
Shawcross, Rt. Hon. Sir Hartley
Mr. Popplewell and


Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.
Mr. Kenneth Robinson.


Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Short, E. W.



Question put, and agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House approves the contractual arrangements between Her Majesty's Government, the Governments of France and the United States of America and the Government of the German Federal Republic concluded at Bonn on 26th May 1952, and the Treaty between Her Majesty's Government and the European Defence Community together with the Protocol to the North Atlantic Treaty which were signed at Paris on 27th May 1952;

and affirms that these instruments give effect to the policy set out in the Declaration signed by the Foreign Ministers of France, the United Kingdom and the United States of America at Washington on 14th September 1951, and pursued by successive Governments of the United Kingdom for the inclusion of a democratic Germany, on a basis of equality, in a Continental European community, which itself will form a part of a constantly developing Atlantic community.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."— [Mr. Buchan-Hepburn.]

FOOT-AND-MOUTH DISEASE

4.23 p.m.

Mr. Frederick Peart: I wish to raise a topic which is of tremendous importance to our great agricultural industry and also of importance to the challenge which our country is making for increased production from our own farms. I refer particularly to the serious threat to food production which has been caused by the foot-and-mouth disease epidemic which we now see not only in our own country but throughout Europe.
Since November, in our own country we have had over 500 outbreaks of foot-and-mouth disease, causing the destruction of thousands of valuable cattle, sheep and pigs. Already we have had to pay in compensation nearly £2½ million. Every week fresh outbreaks are reported. There have been recent outbreaks in Scotland and in my own county of Cumberland. If the epidemic continues, it may well surpass the tragedy of 1923. In that year, we had 1,929 outbreaks of foot-and-mouth disease. We lost 69,000 cattle, 26,000 sheep and 33,000 pigs. The present epidemic may well exceed that figure, and I hope that the Minister will he able to give us the latest information on the position.
These are indeed grim facts. They emerge just when our farmers are making a major effort to increase food production. It has a terrific psychological effect throughout the whole farming world. I read today an excellent article in the "Field" by Ralph Whitlock, who calls this epidemic "a war of nerves in the agricultural world." It seriously interferes with farming practice. Serious as the position is in our own country, it is even worse on the Continent. I have some interesting figures. In Austria, nearly 3,000 farms were attacked and 11,000 gallons of milk were lost per day. The scourge cost Denmark over £8 million. In the month of January Western Germany had over 17,000 outbreaks. In Belgium, for that month there were over 5,000 outbreaks, and in Holland, 2,427.
This is a tremendous threat to agricultural recovery in Europe.
In France, the position is even more serious. In the month of June, it is reported that France had over 60,000 out breaks of foot-and-mouth disease. I believe, therefore, that it is essential that this country, along with the other countries of Europe, should appreciate the need for concerted action on this issue. We must remember that we are really part of the Continent of Europe in our approach to this matter. The disease itself is not a new epidemic in Europe. It swept the Continent in the early part of the 19th Century. The virus was carried from country to country by various means.
We had our first reported outbreak in this country in 1839, when it was believed to have been introduced by infected ship's stores which should have been consumed on board before the ship reached port. In 1926, there was a disastrous outbreak in Scotland which was traced to infected pig carcases from Europe which had gone to a bacon factory. On 12th June of this year, the Minister of Agriculture informed the country that there was now a suspected new carrier of infection, namely, birds flying to this country, bringing in the virus from the Continent. On 17th July, the Minister announced that, because of the threat from France, there would still have to be rigid area restrictions in the south of England. As the Minister pointed out, we have been bombarded for several months, all along the coastal border of our country from Yorkshire to Kent and subsequently from Kent to Dorset, by infection from the Continent.
What is being done to combat this scourge? In Britain there is no complacency. I am not making any political point on this issue. I am certain that every administrative and scientific effort is being made to combat this disease. I know that the Minister himself is working actively to this end and that our own scientists and veterinary staffs, who are the best in the world, are busily engaged on animal disease problems. Our research institutions at Weybridge and Pirbright are the finest in the world and their research products to combat this disease are in universal demand. So every effort is being made in our own country.
Again, in the farming world constructive arguments are raging over the virtues of the policy of slaughter as against the policy of vaccination. The Minister himself has announced that there is to be a special committee, which will begin its work in the autumn of this year, to conduct a special survey and investigation into the whole problem of foot-and-mouth disease. But is this really enough? I do not think it is, and that is why I have questioned the Minister and raised the issue in the House on other occasions.
I believe we now need what is virtually a military campaign against the epidemic, and this means inter-governmental action in Europe. This has been done before. In 1928 this country conducted very successful negotiations with the Governments of the Argentine. Brazil and Uruguay, and our action and joint consultation resulted in the stopping of the export of infected carcases.
In 1946 we had the dramatic example of the action of the United States Government when foot-and-mouth disease broke out in the southern region of Mexico. That was very serious for America, because the United States annually imported 500,000 beef cattle for slaughter from the northern region of Mexico. Immediately the outbreak occurred in the southern region, the United States Government took action. They banned the imports, and I believe the ban operates to this day.
But the United States Government went further and took positive action. Along with the Mexican Government they formed a joint American and Mexican Commission to inaugurate an intensive campaign against foot-and-mouth disease in Mexico itself. A rigid control of cattle movement was introduced, one million infected animals were slaughtered and more than 15 million animals were vaccinated. It cost the American Government 160 million dollars, but I believe it was worth every dollar because the disease has been practically wiped out there.
That is the type of action we now need in Europe. That is why Britain and France, in particular, should initiate a scheme to deal with the problem. However effective the British plans may be and however effective may be our control over foot-and-mouth disease in our

own country, it will all be to no avail if great areas of infection remain on the Continent or in other parts of the world. Foot-and-mouth disease is a European and a world problem, and the accumulation of the disease in northern France or in any other part of Europe will always be a serious menace to our farmers
That is why it is so important that we should take joint governmental action to attack the foci of infection now. That is why the British Government should make special representations to the French Government about this. In other words, we should take the initiative. We did it before. We took the initiative when we helped to set up the special European Organisation to combat the Colorado beetle, another pest which threatened our food supplies. In April, 1951, we signed a Convention relating to the European Plant Protection Organisation. We did that to deal with the Colorado beetle, the potato root eelworm, and rodents threatening our food supplies. This new organisation, which we helped to create, is going into action. Its function is to advise member Governments, according to the Convention,
…on the technical, administrative and legislative measures necessary to prevent the introduction and spread of pests and diseases of plants and plant products…
and to
co-ordinate and stimulate international campaigns…
If that could be done to deal with pests of this nature, how much more important it is that we should have a similar organisation to combat the scourge which is so greatly hindering the production of livestock not only in this country but throughout Europe. The Plant Protection Organisation is to work as a regional body under the Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations, and I am certain that a similar organisation could be established to deal with diseases affecting livestock production.
Therefore, my plea this afternoon is that the Government, along with other Governments such as France, should take the initiative in setting up a European organisation on the lines of the European Plant Protection Organisation. I am certain that there is no time to lose. We should begin now. It is essential that we have combined European action.
The Minister himself, when he was questioned by me on 17th July, admitted that while he and Her Majesty's Government had made no official representation to the F.A.O., that organisation, along with other international organisations, was considering a scheme to deal with foot-and-mouth disease in the Western European countries. I am very glad that the Minister appreciates the need for international action. He has very rightly enabled one of our most important veterinary officers, Sir Thomas Dalling, to be seconded to the Food and Agriculture Organisation in Rome, and I hope that Sir Thomas Dalling will there use his influence, great ability and wide experience to make the European countries come together over this problem. I hope the fact that we took the lead in giving our best veterinary officer to this international body is a sign that we shall encourage a European plan.
I have had handed to me this afternoon a rather interesting Press release from the Food and Agriculture Organisation which states:
The Food and Agriculture Organisation will shortly convene a meeting of European countries to implement an international plan to end the current outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease in Western Europe and to deal rapidly with future outbreaks.
I am very glad that this international body is to take such action, and I hope it will have every support from the Minister and Her Majesty's Government.
I shall not go into details of the suggested plan mentioned in the F.A.O. Press release. It suggests a vaccine bank in Europe from which supplies will be issued to various countries as the need arises. These proposals will have to be studied by every representative Government. Nevertheless, the fact that F.A.O. has issued a statement this week that there must be European action goes to show the importance of our taking the lead on this issue.
I can assure the Minister that I have raised this subject in no party sense. I believe there is agreement on both sides of the House that something must be done. I shall not criticise any particular policy at home or any particular policy which may be applied abroad. I believe there is unanimity on the need for coordinating action. We need a European

plan. We should regard it as a military campaign. Even if we get over the present outbreaks, the scourge could break out again within the next few years. If we do not tackle the problem now, history will repeat itself. I trust the Minister will be able to tell us more about how Her Majesty's Government and his Department are helping to sponsor European action to deal with this most important problem. Action cannot be delayed.

4.40 p.m.

Mr. Niall Macpherson: We are all most grateful to the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Peart) for having raised this matter today and to Mr. Speaker for having given time for it to be debated. The hon. Member very rightly opened his remarks by drawing attention to the very great demoralisation that sets in in various parts of the country as and when they are affected by foot-and-mouth disease. It is absolutely incalculable, and any steps that can be taken either to eradicate or to deal quickly with this disease will be most welcome.
In my own constituency alone there have been more than the 10 per cent. of the total number of outbreaks in the country and the cattle slaughtered represent a loss already of over 1,100,000 gallons of milk a year. Throughout this outbreak I, personally, have met with the very utmost co-operation and help from the Minister and from the Department of Health in Scotland. Nevertheless, there is no doubt that the machinery for dealing with the outbreak of the disease, after a long period of immunity, had rusted to a certain extent.
Whatever steps may be taken with other nations in Europe to deal with this matter, they must be taken as a matter of urgency in every case and the kind of machinery which is devised for dealing with it must be of that character. I think it could properly be likened to the methods to be followed in dealing with an air raid—something of the order of the air-raid precautions machinery.
As soon as an outbreak occurs the first thing that happens is that a large number of veterinary surgeons are drafted into the area, and they are placed under the command of an official of the Ministry of Agriculture. But having so


many people coming into the area who are not necessarily familiar with the area creates a problem in itself. It is quite plain that what is needed is a machine that is always in being on the spot and possibly connected with the National Farmers' Union to deal with an outbreak as soon as it occurs, as well as handle the public relations end so as to make quite certain that everybody knows his job right away. The farmers, the police, the local authority and everybody concerned must know from the start, not just learn by experience as they go along, what has to be done.
There is no doubt that on this occasion the machinery was rusty. It did not work perfectly in this case, but I do not think anybody is to blame. The Minister has very wisely appointed a Commission which is to look into the whole business in this country as soon as the disease has died down. The hon. Member for Workington suggested that we should right away get on with the task of collaborating with European countries and study methods for combating this disease. I agree with that. I think it is right if only because it always takes a long time to set up this kind of international machinery.
At the same time, it is probably right that we in this country should reach our own conclusions before we commit ourselves to definite views. I hope, there, fore, that as a result of the Commission's investigation it will be possible to reach a definite view from which other countries in Europe may perhaps he able to profit. It is also a fact that our own method of dealing with foot-and-mouth disease is diametrically opposed to that on the Continent, and it is not going to be easy to work out a common solution. We pursue a slaughtering policy and that means, of course, that as the State orders the slaughtering the State has to pay the compensation. Let us admit at once that the compensation has been satisfactory.
Here I would address a plea to my right hon. Friend. The State orders the slaughter and it pays compensation, but then it proceeds to tax the compensation. For those who are on a herd basis it is only the profits on the trading account in respect of young stock that are taxed. For those not on a herd basis the whole

of the excess of the compensation paid over the book value comes in under the present arrangement, as part of the trading profit for that year, and it is possible to get the most astounding results. Supposing that the amount were something in the order of £30,000. All that is left to the farmer after taxation would be something like £5,000 to replace that herd. Surely that cannot be right.
If compensation is paid it should be used for the purpose for which it is granted, and that is to restore production. I hope my right hon. Friend will approach the Treasury in this matter at the earliest possible moment and use his best endeavours to make certain that, whether compensation is given for a pedigree herd or for an ordinary working herd, whether it is large or small, it shall be used in full for the purpose for which it was intended, and that a satisfactory method is designed to ensure that result is achieved.
There are two further points I wish to make. The first is that in the south of Scotland—I have no doubt it applies to the area represented by the hon. Member for Workington, too—we are getting perilously near to the time of the lamb sales. I hope my right hon. Friend will this afternoon be able to indicate what steps are being taken to make certain that the lamb sales will be able to proceed in a manner as near normal as possible.
The other point I wish to refer to is the case which was duly reported in the proceedings of the Commission which reported to this House in 1924 and dealt with a cure which was effective. It was fairly well known at that time that a pedigree herd known as the Aitkenbrae herd was attacked by this disease. It belonged to Mr. Thomas Lindsay, who was not only a county councillor of Ayrshire but a governor of the West of Scotland Agricultural College. Authority was obtained to treat his beasts, which numbered about 150. Many of those animals were in calf, but not one calf was lost. The whole thing was over in 10 days. The animals remained entirely isolated in their byres during that period.
It has been stated that immunity was clearly established as a result of the way the outbreak was treated. The owner of the herd was reported to have given a positive assurance that no casualties from


the disease had occurred amongst the cattle. Those are very striking results and the cure is still available. I would suggest that it should be tried out. I would also suggest that we need not wait for the Commission to examine these claims. They have already been examined and established, and if we want further evidence the right thing to do is to allow the person who is in possession of this cure to try it out on the Continent, if proper arrangements can be made with one of the Governments concerned. I hope that will be done, because in dealing with this disease we cannot afford to overlook any possible remedy. I hope, therefore, that my right hon. Friend will be able to say that he will at least explore this matter as early as possible with the countries concerned.

4.51 p.m.

Mr. James Johnson: May I. as a layman in this somewhat bucolic gathering, support the eloquent case put by my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Peart), because this is not only a technical matter. This disease has a much wider impact upon society in general. For example, I was up at the Durham Miners' Gala last Saturday and I found that the Sedge-field Show in the vicinity had been can-celled because of foot-and-mouth disease. Again, in my own Division of Rugby I discovered that the rural district council were discussing whether they should give the dustmen foot-dipping drill, whatever that may mean, before they visit farms where there is foot-and-mouth disease. So this has a wider aspect outside the somewhat technical discussion we have had so far.
The disease has been endemic since last November. In fact, my own market at Rugby only opened last week for the sale of livestock. As I say, the losses go far beyond the agricultural community. The "Farmers Weekly" had an editorial on 27th June which makes my case for me. It said:
The daily cost of this epidemic grows bigger. It cannot be counted merely on the basis of the money paid out by the Government in compensation. This figure is getting on now for £2½ million, but it is nowhere near the real cost any more than the cash payment repays the entire loss suffered by an accident-crippled man.
Who can compute the actual loss to the countryside where markets as in

Warwickshire, for example, are paralysed? There is loss not only to the farmers, dealers and auctioneers, but there is also loss in that there is less beer sold at the "Blue Boar" and fewer boots and shoes bought at the open air stalls on the cobbles of the market place. So it affects the whole countryside.
Again, as a layman, I have sometimes sat behind my hon. Friend the Member for Workington and listened to him interrogating the Minister about European co-operation in checking this disease. Recently I saw that M. Jean Antier, the French Minister of Agriculture, said that one-fifteenth of all the stock in France is infected and they have increased four-fold their import of serum to tackle this disease. They are also calling in the Army veterinary staff to help them. In Germany they have had an outbreak which cost them £80 million.
In Europe they tackle the disease with vaccine, but here we slaughter. I think slaughter is better but, as was said a few moment ago, there are only 20 miles of water between us and the Continent with its hundreds of thousands of infected beasts. The Channel can be called a defensive moat, but this is a highly contagious disease and I am told that virus has been carried in packing cases into the heart of Canada, into Alberta. It may even be carried by starlings over the Channel, as some people suggest.
The Minister has used the term "constant bombardment" and "mass infection." May I support the plea of the hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. N. Macpherson) for an all-out operation against this disease? Some time ago we had "Operation Colorado" against the Colorado beetle. We want an "Operation Foot-and-Mouth" on a military scale against this virus and disease.

4.56 p.m.

Mr. Hugh Fraser: The three speeches made so far have been extremely constructive. My hon. Friend has suggested that inside this country we should tighten up the machinery for dealing with an outbreak. The hon. Gentleman who so fortunately for this House raised this debate, said that since there are only 20 miles of water between ourselves and the Continent, there should be a European policy


in regard to this disease. I am sure that the Minister will strive for a common policy in Europe for dealing with this problem.
Whilst I agree that it should be treated as a military operation, I am quite convinced that the tactics we pursue in this island are the correct ones. The investment which we should have to make if we used a process like the Waldmann, which is the one mostly used on the Continent, would mean the expenditure of £34 million, since we have 17 million head of cattle, in addition to which we should lose £2 million per annum from the export of cattle which this country enjoys now and which would cease. Here I must confess a personal interest as a cattle exporter.
So long as we can maintain an effective slaughter policy we are all right, and it has been maintained on the whole in this country over a long period of years. The hon. Gentleman talked of a £80 million loss by Germany and said that all the cattle in France were infected. I believe that the figure mentioned is an underestimate. In this country, in the opinion of Dr. Muskus, the chief veterinary surgeon of Venezuela, who is a friend of mine and with whom I was dealing some years ago, we have in Professor Galloway the greatest expert in the world on this subject, and our method of prevention is the most effective in the world.
Whether we could produce for Europe through the F.A.O. or some other organisation the same policy as that carried out in Mexico, I do not know. The Mexican policy cost 160 million dollars and, incidentally, led to the loss of more than 30 veterinary lives because the peasants in the Andes said, "To something with you ! You shoot our beasts, we shoot you." And 30 vets were killed in that operation. The essence of that operation was vaccination and then slaughter when the disease was under control. Of course, I do not want any vets slaughtered, though I expect some dissident farmers at the moment might feel inclined to slaughter some of my right hon. Friend's assistants. If, however, we could get over to Europe that policy of vaccination and then slaughter, it would be the right policy.

4.59 p.m.

The Minister of Agriculture (Sir Thomas Dugdale): The House is indebted to the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Peart) for this short debate. It is of great interest to all of us, and I thank the hon. Members for their helpful speeches.
I agree entirely with the hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. J. Johnson) that the implications and effects of the disease go far beyond the farm gate. All the points raised by the hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. N. Macpherson) are suitable points for the Departmental Committee which is to start work in the autumn, and I assure him that anything we can do to help in this difficult problem, we will do; it is very much in our minds. More than that, I cannot say.
Before I deal with the international aspect, the House would like me to give an up-to-date appreciation of the position. I am glad to be able to say that the position has continued to improve since I last addressed the House on the subject. There were 22 outbreaks of foot-and-mouth disease in the second half of July, compared with 29, 43 and 63 in the previous half-monthly periods. The movement is, therefore, in the right direction.
Outbreaks in the past week have occurred in the infected areas in Dumfries, Cumberland and Kent. The only other infected area now is Devon, where there has been no outbreak since 17th July. The restricted area has, therefore, been contracted in size. The remainder of Great Britain is now free from infection.
From the figures since 14th November last year, when the first outbreak of the present series occurred, we find that there have been 548 outbreaks. This has entailed the slaughter of just over 36,000 cattle, 37,000 sheep and 11,500 pigs. As Members have already indicated, the compensation up to date has amounted to approximately £2½ million, which, as the House will realise, is by far the largest sum payable in compensation for any comparable period in the history of the disease in this country. That, however, is due to the present relatively high money value of our livestock.
Turning to Western Europe—I shall have a word to say later about its particular corners—generally speaking,


the position has also improved very considerably since the winter and spring. In the Scandinavian countries and in Holland and Belgium, there have been relatively few outbreaks since the beginning of June. Hon. Members will have been interested in the details given by the hon. Member for Workington about the very heavy figures in various countries in Europe during the epidemic, but they were mostly before June.
The one exception to the general improvement—and it is serious—is France. According to the latest available figures, the position there is still deteriorating. The hon. Member was correct in his figures for June, when there were nearly 61,500 fresh outbreaks in France. An even later figure shows that there were over 47,000 more in the first half of July.

Mr. Gerald Williams: France is a very large place, and it is, of course, the north of France that affects this country.

Sir T. Dugdale: I am coming to that. Fortunately for this country, the infection appears now to be moving away from those parts of France nearest our coasts, and there is no evidence that fresh infection has been introduced into this country from France since the end of June. That means that the threat to our South Coast is now less than it was a few weeks ago. Although my veterinary advisers would like a little longer experience before advising a change, I hope that the controlled area in southern England may be removed in the fairly near future.
Hon. Members will also be aware that controlled area restrictions were removed last night from the counties of Cumberland, Durham and Northumberland, where the spread of disease that appeared possible did not occur, and also from the county of Wigtown, which does not now appear to be threatened by the outbreaks in Dumfries.
Previous experience has shown that in the autumn the chief danger to this country arises when infection is building up in Holland, Belgium, and the Pas de Calais zone of France. These areas are not at present seriously affected, and although—I say this advisedly—the position may change before the bird migration season starts, there is no reason at present to expect a repetition of last autumn's experiences.
Hon. Members who wish also to study the relationship between foot and mouth infection on the Continent and in this country and the effects of bird migration, will find an extremely interesting article on the subject by two of my veterinary officers in the August issue of the Ministry of Agriculture's Journal "Agriculture." That edition will he on sale in about 10 days' time, and I commend the article to all hon. Members who are interested in the subject.
I should like now to refer to the Departmental Committee which, as I have informed the House, will be set up. Hon. Members will not expect me today to comment on the criticisms and suggestions that have been made in connection with our policy and procedure for dealing with foot-and-mouth disease. All these matters will come before the Departmental Committee that I have undertaken to appoint. I am, however, very glad to be in a position today to inform the House that Sir Ernest Gowers has accepted the chairmanship of this Committee. That, I think, will commend itself to all hon. Members in any part of the House. I cannot yet give the names of the other members, but it is my intention that the membership should be such as to ensure that the whole subject is carefully and impartially examined.
The precise terms of reference of the Committee have not yet been settled, but they will be such as to require the Committee to review the whole present policy and arrangements for dealing with foot-and-mouth disease in Great Britain, as well as the procedure adopted by the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries for applying and carrying them out. We shall, in addition, expect the Committee to take account of the present state of scientific knowledge and the experience gained in recent years in this and in other countries, and we shall look to them for advice on whether any changes should be made in our policy, arrangements or procedure.

Mr. George Brown: I am probably pushing at an open door, but it is as well to get this on record. I hope the Minister will see that the membership of the Committee is sufficiently wide in its interest representation that there can be no suggestion afterwards that criticism of policy, because of its effect on particular interests, has been muffled by not


giving people outside those interests a place on the Committee. The House would be grateful for an assurance from the Minister that the membership of the Committee will be wide enough to go outside those interests.

Sir T. Dugdale: It is my intention to make the representation as wide as possible, but I want to keep down the Committee to reasonable numbers.

Mr. Brown: I quite agree.

Sir T. Dugdale: I hope that the Committee will be able to begin work by about the end of September.
I come now to Pirbright. The House will be interested to know that the Agricultural Research Council have prepared an interim report on the work of the Foot-and-Mouth Disease Research Institute at Pirbright, which has been submitted to the Lord President and myself. My noble Friend has given instructions that the report should be published, and arrangements are being made for publication as early as possible.
The hon. Member for Workington was quite right to lay stress on the importance of international co-operation for dealing with epidemics of foot-and-mouth disease. Disease is no respecter of boundaries, and if it is not dealt with promptly and effectively wherever it occurs, it must become a menace to other countries. This is well illustrated by a recent epidemic which started in South-Eastern Europe and spread northwards and westwards. The vaccines at first available in this great epidemic were not effective against the particular type of virus involved, and before the position was realised and an effective vaccine produced, the disease had spread far and wide and was difficult to overtake. All this might have been avoided if the initial outbreaks had been effectively dealt with.
The hon. Member for Workington suggested that representations should be made to the French Government. On this point I disagree with him. I am doubtful about that, for this reason. As I have explained, the initial infection did not reach us from France and it was only subsequently when France, like ourselves, was invaded by the infection from other countries, that she became a danger to us. I think it would be invidious, therefore, to single out France for special

representations, and I am confident that it would be best for this matter to be handled on a wider international basis.
The hon. Gentleman also suggested that a new organisation, on the lines of E.P.P.O.—that is the one dealing with Colorado beetles—should be set up. Here again, I doubt whether it is desirable to create yet another organisation to deal with the problem. Let me explain the position of the organisations in Europe.

Mr. Peart: Would the right hon. and gallant Gentleman give the reason why it would not be suitable to do that?

Sir T. Dugdale: I do not think we want any more organisations. There are plenty of organisations working at present. We have to get them coordinated and working together, and I do not think it is necessary to set up another organisation to achieve that.
As I have previously informed the House, there are three international bodies concerning themselves with the control of foot-and-mouth disease in Europe. These are the International Epizootics Office, which was set up in Paris in 1927, the Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations, and the Organisation for European Economic Co-operation. The allocation of responsibilities between these bodies is being defined, but in the meantime they are working together.
A short time ago, O.E.E.C. set up a special working party, of which Sir Thomas Dalling, at that time our chief veterinary officer, was chairman, to study and report on the prevalence of disease of livestock in Western Europe and the methods for its control. F.A.O. and I.E.O. are represented on this working party. The working party decided that foot-and-mouth disease should be given priority and has formulated definite recommendations for the control of foot-and-mouth disease in Western Europe.
While fully endorsing the stamping-out methods where applicable, the working party recommended the provision of a central store of efficient vaccines from which supplies could be drawn by any country immediately an outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease was diagnosed. The hon. Member for Workington referred briefly to this. The amount of vaccine


stored should be sufficient to supply the needs of all countries for one month.
The working party also recommended the production and holding of supplies by each country of virus which could rapidly be transformed into vaccine to be available within one month of the beginning of the outbreak. The stored vaccine would meet the immediate requirements, while the vaccine prepared from the stored virus would be ready for use within a month and would be used extensively.
These recommendations were directed to countries in which foot-and-mouth disease is controlled by either a vaccination policy or a policy of slaughter with vaccination, and do not call for direct action by ourselves in this country. Nevertheless, it is of the greatest importance to us that the recommendations should be energetically followed up, and I can assure the House that Her Majesty's Government will do all they can to ensure this. The recommendations were discussed at a meeting in Paris of Directors of Veterinary Services from most of the countries concerned in May of this year and were finally agreed as a means of controlling the disease.
At a recent meeting of the Food and Agriculture Committee of O.E.E.C. the recommendations were adopted and a resolution was sent to the Council of O.E.E.C. urging that O.E.E.C. inform the concerned countries of the urgent need for a meeting of representatives to consider the ways and means of implementing the recommendations. At the same meeting it was decided to pass to F.A.O. the duty of ensuring the implementation of the recommended organisation of control of foot-and-mouth disease in Western Europe. Meantime, the European Committee of Agriculture of F.A.O. had also considered the recommendations and had accepted them.
We are making it abundantly clear through the appropriate channels that Her Majesty's Government are anxious to participate in a high-level meeting at the earliest possible date of representatives of the Governments concerned to consider the implementation of these recommendations and any other measures designed to bring this dreadful scourge under control.

HORTICULTURE

5.17 p.m.

Mr. W. F. Deedes: I want to turn from one aspect of the agricultural industry to another—namely, horticulture; and I very much welcome this opportunity to concentrate our attention for a short while specifically on this part of the industry. In agricultural debates this aspect tends to receive less attention than its proportion of the industry deserves, for it amounts to £125 million of produce a year and one-sixth of the entire agricultural output; and at Question time it is a subject which tends to get canalised into angry exchanges about specific commodities. I think it is a good thing to turn for a moment to a rather broad approach beyond the point of having to explain the plum glut or the unwelcome strawberry imports.
From a constituency point of view, I probably represent as much fruit and as many fruit growers as any other hon. Member, but I intend to resist the temptation to put the case this afternoon exclusively from what I would call a farm, or perhaps I should say fruit, lobby point of view. I am convinced that what I shall say is, in the long run, in the best interests of the industry.
I want to deal first with the problem of imports, because it is exceedingly important that we get this matter in true perspective. We are dealing here with an issue on which there are sharply conflicting opinions. There are two schools which in their extremes say something like this. The first puts the consumers first and says they are entitled to the cheapest fruit and vegetables which can be obtained from here or abroad—and the devil take the hindmost. That is one extreme. The second school, again in the extreme, puts the growers first and insists that imports be subordinated to the interests of the growers and, if need be stopped altogether.
If one lives in a town one tends to take the first view and if one lives in the country one tends to take the second view. If one occupies the Front Bench or a Ministry in Whitehall, one tends to take neither view but to sit in the middle trying hard to appear friendly to both factions. That has been done by all concerned since the war and I do not think it has worked very well. In one


respect I think it has been disastrous, for this reason—that we have now, as I hope to show, led the Government into the totally false position of appearing wholly responsible for the destiny of this industry.
We all know perfectly well that among the Ministries there are conflicting interests on this import question. That is perfectly natural, and I do not think there is anything to be concealed about it. The Ministry of Agriculture, which is closest to the National Farmers' Union, would quite naturally like to help the growers. The Board of Trade, which is primarily concerned with trade—hence its name—has to consider primarily overseas trade agreements and our trade situation, which some might consider almost as perilous as the condition of horticulture itself. They are compelled to think in terms of trade pacts and bargains. They are compelled to say, "If we are to sell lace and scissors to France, we must be prepared to accept some of their unwanted strawberry exports."
Between these two, the Ministry of Food tends to act as a well-intentioned but sometimes foolish and occasionally not very honest broker. That is the lineup between these conflicting interests, which on the Floor of the House tends to become over-simplified into the wholly misleading issue of the housewives versus the growers. We have one aspect of that put reasonably but forcibly by the hon. Lady the Member for Blackburn, East (Mrs. Castle) in this House.
It is time we tried to get these issues a little straighter, and let a litle air in on this subject. This import issue is emphatically not the dominant factor in the life of this industry, but it has come to be treated as if all the problems of the industry centred round it. To my way of thinking they do nothing of the kind. The import question is so treated because there has been far too much shilly-shallying in Whitehall in recent years. Whitehall's policy has given the industry a legitimate grievance which has grown out of all proportion and now threatens to obscure every other factor affecting the horticultural industry.
That seems to me to be a totally false position. I implore my hon. Friend, through the Minister, to clear up initially this muddle in relation to imports so that

this Government should be beyond reproach in this, the only sphere in which they should be actively concerned. Once the import situation is straight, the industry can see its own problems straight and tackle them itself, and there are plenty of them to tackle. I believe that the industry will never set its house in order so long as it believes, as it is in part entitled to believe, that it has a grievance against the Government's import policy.
It means that every problem of the horticultural industry, instead of being faced is being blamed obliquely on to trade policy. Trade policy is the Government's concern. I consider that outside it the Government have no place in this industry at all. They neither guarantee prices nor markets, and I think that the less they have to do with the industry the better.
Let us consider the consequences of the situation in which the Government—I speak of any Government—have got themselves in relation to this industry. In a year such as this, when there are many gluts—we have the biggest plum crop of the century, I believe—fruit growers have been led to suppose that Government action can and must dispose of crop surpluses. I am bound to say that there are hon. Members on this side of the House who think that and express that point of view.
I should dearly like to be able to state an economic truth and say that it is absolute nonsense to pretend that a Government can be made responsible for disposing of a surplus created by nature's bounty. I should like to say that, but I cannot quite do so because I know, the growers know and the Government know, that the market has been bedevilled in the past by certain imports, in particular imports of pulp which are still lying undigested upon the fresh fruit market, which have led the growers to believe that they have been put in the wrong.
As I say, the Government have got themselves into this position of being held mainly responsible for the fortunes of this most mercurial and hazardous industry. The Board of Trade, the Ministry of Food, the Ministry of Agriculture are all affected by this, and this embarrassment will continue until first things have been put right.
There are some who think that this industry should be told exactly what is expected of it, that it should be told that it is producing too much, too little or just enough. How can it? Nobody knows. We have today 286,000 acres under orchard fruit and 62,000 acres under soft fruit. That is a lot of acres. Do we want it all? I would say that once the import question has been settled that is a matter which the industry alone, and only the industry, can answer for itself, to put it quite brutally, by the law of supply and demand.
What is the alternative? It would be that the Government would have to work out the precise domestic demand for fruit and vegetables on the most uncertain market that exists in this country, lay down targets and guarantee what is produced towards those targets. We know that that would be absolute nonsense.
I say that the order of action is, first, that we have to fix our import situation by means of tariffs—tariffs which give competent producers of vegetables and fruit in this country a square deal, and I stress the word "competent"—which removes the wholly legitimate grievances under which they labour, such as the importation last year of subsidised American apples at the wrong time, and this weight of undigested fruit pulp which is lying on the market, and which growers fear far more than the import of fresh fruit.
It will be asked, "How high should the tariffs be?" I venture to give the answer that they should be high enough to protect the reasonably efficient; they should not be so high as to feather-bed the shoddy producer. In my view, the industry is carrying today far too many part-time passengers, and my sympathies in this matter lie entirely with the whole-time professional, the man who at the present rate of costs spends large sums—three times as much as those required before the war—and who is entitled to see a return on his money.
I wish to say a word about marketing costs. Since the war progress in this field has been negligible. That is really not surprising. Marketing schemes are designed for slumps and low prices and not really for times of inflation. Everybody likes a floor to his market; nobody is so much interested in a ceiling. To my way of thinking, marketing schemes must spring from the industry itself as

something which it desires to happen and which it desires to make work.
No matter how well-intentioned the Government may be about marketing schemes, such schemes will never be successfully super-imposed on this industry unless it wants them and is prepared to make them work. I shall be glad to hear some news of how the tomato scheme has worked and been worked. I should like even more to have some news about the apple and pear scheme which has been lurking in Whitehall now for upwards of two years. We should like to know when it is to come into action, and for which crop, whether in this or the next decade, that agreement is intended.
There will be no real interest in this matter of marketing so long as everybody is obsessed, as is the case now, with imports and believes that the whole problem lies there. I do not for a moment deny that the vegetable and fruit trade, particularly the fruit industry, is in the greatest difficulty at the moment. I have the greatest sympathy for all concerned because I think many have been bamboozled, and that our only hope now of a solution is to get clear thinking and straight talking, possibly along lines not tried before.
I am certain that most of these difficulties have to be solved by the industry itself and that they have nothing whatever to do with the Government. The tragedy of these days, indeed the tragedy of this particular industry, is the fact that everyone becomes increasingly dependent on the Government of the day and less dependent upon themselves. If that course is pursued and encouraged, it will be the death of the horticultural industry in this country.

Mr. Gerald Nabarro: Surely the growers have become dependent upon the Government only because the Government are the only body or authority which can control imports.

Mr. Deedes: I do not deny, and I have not denied in anything I have said, the total responsibility of the Government in the single field of imports. That is the keystone of our policy, and the record, I admit, has been deplorable. There have been too many secret covenants secretly arrived at.

Mr. Nabarro: Thoroughly unsatisfactory.

Mr. Deedes: In the result the Government have only themselves to blame. It is a matter of history. They have been saddled with the sorrows of the entire industry.
But it is not undesirable, I believe, that some progress is being made with a reconstituted tariff policy, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will tell us anything he can about it today. I will not speculate. He may have some news for us. In order to be wise before and not after the event, I would say that I am not one who places his whole faith in the tariff system as a complete answer to the whole problem. I think our experience of quotas has been unfortunate. That may well be due not to the system, but to the way in which it has been put to work. The quota system may well have possible uses, if used in conjunction with tariffs.
I say we must get this right first. We must get trade, agriculture and food on the same footing, and work to achieve a solution in respect of an import policy which will have the confidence of the industry. When that has been done, let us get out of this industry; let it stand on its own feet. I say now to the hon. Gentleman that if he, with his right hon. Friend, can achieve that he will not only be fulfilling the policy for which this party stands, but he will assist this industry on the only road along which I believe lies its salvation.

5.33 p.m.

Mr. Frederick Willey: I do not want politically to embarrass the hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes) whose speeches are found attractive by all hon. Members, but I agree with one of the things he has said, that the question of imports is not the dominating factor. I think if we face up to the problem in this way we shall take a more realist view of the difficulties.

Mr. Nabarro: It is not the dominating factor?

Mr. Willey: No.

Mr. Nabarro: Quite wrong.

Mr. Willey: I agree with the hon. Member for Ashford. The hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) will get an opportunity of putting his point of view.
It is not the dominating factor if for no other reason than that the consumption of fruit and vegetables in this country is too low. It has still not got up to pre-war levels. While that position obtains the major operation we must undertake is to increase the consumption of both fruit and vegetables. Indeed, this is one of the most effective ways that we can assist the industry. When we examine in detail the question of imports, we must realise that it is an extraordinarily difficult problem.
It is easy for the hon. Member for Ashford to generalise, but if he went into office I am sure he would find it difficult to put his generalities into operation. I would mention one generality. We are dependent on food surpluses in the world and it is, therefore, difficult for us to be very discriminating. We often have to give way to the countries supplying us with essential foodstuffs. The most we can do is to accept this difficulty and try to strike a fair balance in every case. If we do that, it is difficult to obtain the desirable objective which the hon. Member for Ashford wishes to obtain, to achieve absolute stability regarding imports. In spite of all this, however, if the Parliamentary Secretary has the answer he may tell us why the Board of Trade have recently increased the fruit pulp quota, which certainly seems extraordinary in the present circumstances.
I wish to deal with a question which certainly does affect the industry—marketing. I do not want to stir up any controversy about this question. It is an absolutely essential question to the industry and I would like, if possible, to see the widest measure of agreement about it. It is a subject which need not give rise to very great controversy. The last Government examined this question exhaustively and put forward a tentative scheme; that we should open new auction markets in provincial centres and that this whole scheme should be on an experimental basis. We were just about to open discussions with the trade. For the benefit of the hon. Member for Kidderminster, I would say that the party opposite has changed its view about marketing. It does not now rely entirely on the use of producer boards, and in its most recent Election statement it brought in also the question of distribution.
The distributive trade itself has taken the initiative and called for an authority on similar lines to the White Fish Authority. This is a sphere of distribution, therefore, in which the distributors at any rate are alive to the need for something to be done. I have said that I do not think we should cause acute controversy about this. The difficulties are largely mechanical. We have not the marketing machinery to carry the volume of produce which is supposed to go through it now. That is a difficulty which I think the distributive trade itself accepts.
If we accept that, then the problems which face us are largely technical. How many markets do we need? What is the appropriate size for the markets? Where should they be located and what sort of character should they be? By what sort of management should they be controlled? This is not a matter of controversy. This is not a sufficiently attractive field for investment to call for private investment. Everyone, even those in the distributive trade, would recognise at once that if new markets are to be established, it will have to be done in the main by some form of public company or public corporation.
I know very well, and the Minister of Food has told me two or three times already during this Session, that, with the present restrictions and limitations on capital investment, it would be unreal to expect any real development at the present time. It is for that reason that I think we ought to try to carry forward these plans; because the very fact that we have time to consider—owing to the restriction on capital investment—means that we should have an adequate opportunity to hammer out a practical policy and to decide the proper assistance which can be given to the horticulure industry by providing it with a better mechanism to distribute its produce.

Mr. J. B. Godber: Would the hon. Gentleman explain whether he is now speaking in general terms of the country as a whole, or whether he is concerned largely with the problem here in London? Does he mean that there is insufficient capacity for the produce going through markets all over the country, or is he concerned mainly with the problem here in London?

Mr. Willey: There is inadequacy in both respects, but it is demonstrably inadequate in London. The reason for the present pressure on Covent Garden is that there are not adequate facilities in the provinces. So we have to deal with both problems, the question of the adequacy of Covent Garden and the capacity and location of markets in the provinces.

Mr. Godber: But surely the extra produce which goes through Covent Garden also goes through those provincial markets. In many cases it is bought in Covent Garden and goes through the provincial markets. So it is not by-passing them at present. Even though it is going through, I say that there is no over-congestion in most of these provincial markets.

Mr. Willey: It does both. I hesitate to use the word "reconsign" because it upsets the whole of the distributive trade, but some of the produce is reconsigned and some goes direct to the provincial markets. One must ask oneself why there is this great pressure at Covent Garden. It is largely because of the inadequacy of facilities. This point ought to be discussed by those in the trade to see whether or not we can get a rational solution and to discover what amount of capital investment would be involved.
The vital importance of the question is that the high cost of the distributive trade expresses itself largely in the waste of food. If we complain about the high cost of vegetables or fruit we often find that it is because of the high wastage that there is in distribution. I know that the hon. Member for Kidderminster disagrees with me. He would say that there are exorbitant profits made by the distributors. That is a point of view.

Mr. Nabarro: I did not express any view at all, because I did not have an opportunity. There is no single solution to this problem. Surely the hon. Gentleman realises that, for instance, to quote one example, the cost of crates for horticultural produce is about seven times the pre-war cost. That is a major contribution to the inflated cost of vegetables in the market.

Mr. Willey: Economy in the use of crates is one of the first results of improved marketing.

Mr. Nabarro: Not necessarily.

Mr. Willey: It is one of the first results. It is because of the vital importance of conserving fruit and vegetables and avoiding the waste of food that we should, even though it may be academic at present, try to get the widest consultation upon this matter of marketing and a policy decision from the Government.

Mr. Archer Baldwin: I want to put the hon. Member right about co-operative markets. There are five cooperative markets selling fruit within 40 miles of Birmingham. These markets cannot absorb plums at the cost of picking. Our plums are lying on the ground; we cannot get 2d. a lb. for them.

5.43 p.m.

Mr. Gerald Williams: While I disagree with much of what was said by the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. F. Willey), I have not time to take up the various points of disagreement now. We heard a most useful speech from my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes). To horticulturists it was an inspiring speech. I say straight away that I do not want to cover the same ground; but I was glad that in one of his closing sentences he mentioned the words "tariffs" and "quotas." I am convinced that tariffs alone will not work without quotas.
The industry must solve its own problems as far as possible. But the Government can help to a considerable extent. I want to speak in particular rather than in general. Though I am against all forms of State trading schemes, I believe that in the present season with a record plum crop the Government can help with the S.O.2 process for preserving plums. I do not believe that any private enterprise firm would be able to carry out the work to the extent desired. If the Government can tell us of their scheme within the next few days we should be grateful. The Government could in this way save many of the plums which otherwise will be wasted.
Apart from the formation of a definite scheme, the Government could help in other ways. I know that already they are helping in the Army, though it may be at the expense of the recruiting campaign in the amount of plum and apple jam to be expected in the messes. They could also help with the education authorities

which they control. They could give advice that those responsible for school meals should supply more fruit at the right time. They could give instructions that food should be bottled and kept for the winter. To a certain extent the Government control the hospitals, and they can advise the same procedure there. They also run canteens which could be encouraged to use far more fruit.
I turn to the growers who are always urging the Government to help them. The Government could urge the producers to help themselves. The producers could do that by advertising their wares. The Association of Producers should get together and imitate the South Africans in advertising their grapes, or start a campaign such as that we have had in past years telling people to eat more fish. I do not know why people should eat more fish if they are told to, but the fact remains that we all tell people to vote for Smith, Jones or even Williams at elections and, somehow, it seems to have the right effect.
If we tell people to eat more fruit when it is ripe and ready, I am sure that a great deal more fruit will be sold. The people should also be told how to bottle fruit. It can be bottled without sugar. If the process is advertised, saying how well the fruit is preserved for the winter, that will help to use more fruit.

Dr. Barnett Stross: It has constantly been found to be true that two features are necessary if one wants to increase the consumption of any article today. One is to advertise it in the way described, and the other is to get the price lower. Then there is always success.

Mr. Williams: There is no argument against that. If steps are taken by the Government to use more fruit in their Departments, and the growers do some advertising, I believe that we shall be able to help solve the problem caused by surplus fruit this year.

5.47 p.m.

Wing Commander Eric Bullus: I wish to support what has been said by my hon. Friends on this side of the House. I had a Question on the Order Paper this week addressed to the Minister of Food, asking him what steps he was taking to ensure that maximum use was made of this


year's apple harvest. I had a written reply today, which says:
Since the crop is not expected to be heavy and imports from Europe must be restricted, for currency reasons, home-produced apples of marketable quality should find a ready sale.
There are some reports which are in conflict with that answer. I have the evidence of my own garden: I may be lucky. I read in one paper the headline, "Apple Glut Fear." It has always been a source of wonder to me why we should fear God's bountiful provision of the fruits of the earth. It must be a journalistic anomaly. Should we not be thankful and make full use of the fruits of the earth?
I should like to think that there will be no waste of our apple crop or of our fruit crop as a whole, but I have grave doubts. The Minister of Food says that the import of apples will be restricted for currency reasons. Why only for currency reasons? Last year apple imports amounted to nearly 200,000 tons.

Mr. Nabarro: Disgraceful.

Wing Commander Bullus: Permitted imports for the first six months of this year were 70,000 tons. Probably the Minister can tell us whether those imports have been taken up.
In an Adjournment debate in February I pointed out the difficulties and the great waste of apples. I recalled that last year there was probably a wastage of about 50,000 tons of apples which could have been used. If the pure fruit juice industry had used these, seven million gallons of pure unfermented fruit juice could have been secured. They would contain 3,500 tons of natural sugar, and no sugar is required for preserving. If 50,000 tons of wasted apples last year had been processed, at least 3,000 tons of product with a high pectin value would have been available. The Government spent £52,700 on imported pectin in 1950.
Again, dried pomace will make 1,500 tons of animal foodstuffs, certainly of low protein value, but useful food for animals, from the use of 50,000 tons of apples. I therefore ask if the Minister would have regard to these possibilities and encourage the maximum use of our home-grown produce.

Mrs. Jean Mann: May I ask one or two questions before the hon. Gentleman replies?
I wish to put the point of view of Scotland. I want to ask the hon. Gentleman how it is that, in Scotland, we hear of plums being available in England at 2d. per lb., but that they never come our way. The price to us is 300 per cent. higher. How is it that we hear of strawberries being sold by the wayside at ls. ld. per lb. when, in the Scottish shops, they are 3s. 6d. a lb.? Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in Scotland we suffer very much from fruit and vegetables arriving in a decayed condition? We cannot blame the merchants for that, because—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Charles MacAndrew): Order. I understood that the hon. Lady was only going to ask a question, but she is now making a speech and rather overstepping the mark.

5.52 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture (Mr. G. R. H. Nugent): I should like to thank my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes) for his very full and valuable contribution on this extremely complex and difficult subject of the marketing of horticultural produce and the problem of our imports policy. Before I deal with the general problem which my hon. Friend put before the House so ably, there are one or two specific questions with which I should like to deal.
First of all, my hon. Friend and one or two others have asked me what progress is being made by the Tomato and Cucumber Marketing Board. It has had only a little more than a full year of operation, and, therefore, its progress, naturally, has not been spectacular; but it has proceeded to complete its registration of growers and to the initial collection of a levy, which seems to have proceeded reasonably smoothly, considering that it was the first levy collected. The promotion of improved grading and packing has occupied a good deal of their attention, and they have been making some progress.
They have also started on certain improvements on publicity campaigns by the retailers last year, and I think that is beginning to have some value. They are trying, particularly, to establish more effective enforcement of the Merchandise Marks Act in order to get retailers to mark their tomatoes and cucumbers with


the source of origin. That is a matter for negotiation with the local authorities.
They have compiled a list of authorised salesmen, and have determined quite a difficult matter in the terms of agency and conditions of sale under which tomatoes and cucumbers may be sold by registered producers. They have started on the difficult problem of market intelligence, but not many growers have made use of the service, and they are also investigating the problem of processing.
I think they may be congratulated on what they have done, because they have been blamed for a whole lot of things for which they are not responsible. It is a very difficult field, and they are advised to go cautiously. We all want to see what a marketing board can do in the field of horticultural marketing, but it is a very difficult field and what they will do will be very valuable in indicating what might be done by producers before framing other schemes.

Mr. Godber: I am most interested in the report that my hon. Friend is giving, but would he not agree that the really vital thing in marketing is in trying to get the very best quality produce to the consumer at a just and reasonable price? That is, surely, the key to all they are doing, but it is not clear from what my hon. Friend has said.

Mr. Nugent: I felt that the House had appreciated that that was the one purpose of the marketing board, and that it was hardly necessary for me to say it.
I agree with the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. F. Willey) that market accommodation in many cases is insufficient. But, personally, I am doubtful how far co-operative markets can fill the gap. There are a number of co-operative markets, many of them serving a useful purpose, but they are, in the main, handling only a very small volume.
I am quite certain that the London markets will continue to attract a very large volume of produce, whatever may be done in the provinces. Before we look at additional market accommodation in the provinces, we should look very seriously into providing additional market accommodation in London. The volume of produce handled in Covent Garden is remarkable, in view of the

physical restrictions, which are appalling. I cannot go further into that aspect, but I feel that I must make the comment that it is fundamental to the whole business of marketing that there should be sufficient accommodation in which to do it properly.
Turning now to the general comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford, I agree with so much of what he said in suggesting that the Government have gone into the field of horticultural marketing—a field which it is impossible for anyone, except the Almighty, to control. The fact is that the production of horticultural produce is a highly speculative enterprise, and it has always been well known to be. The weather is the dominant factor. It first of all determines the time of arrival of a crop on the market and the time at which it can be sold. It also determines the size arid quality of the crop, and all these things are variable enough. The weather also determines what other crops, which might compete with that one, are also on the market. Then, it determines what the public demand may be for any particular crop.
There is a direct relationship, for instance, apart from the possible competition of alternatives, between a cool spell in summer, which we have not experienced lately, and public demand. The public are very reluctant to buy salad crops in such conditions, but, in a warm spell, we get a very high demand. Bearing in mind the fact that nearly all this production is highly perishable, it is obvious that fluctuations and variations in the supply, on the one hand, and of public demand, on the other, are simply enormous.
It is quite fair to say that growers generally fully understand these risks, and are quite prepared to shoulder them, but the way they look at it is that they realise that some crops are going to be a failure, in terms of the monetary return—that is to say, that they will make a loss—but they are content to place their stuff on the market at a loss, provided that, with other crops, they can make sufficient profit to carry them over on the crops that do not succeed.
Therefore, immediately, we have the problem of imports. Some four-fifths of our vegetables are produced at home, and the other fifth is imported. In regard


to fruit, a rather higher proportion is imported. When the home crop is in rather shorter supply, and prices are firm and demand strong, if, at that time. imports are increased substantially in volume, the price falls down, and the producer cannot get sufficient profit to carry him over the time in which he has made a loss on other crops. Thus, the whole problem of imports policy is involved, while, at the same time, the interests of the consumer must be looked after.
We must try to ensure that the consumer receives adequate supplies at reasonable prices, and it is fair to say that, if producers on the long view are not allowed to make a sufficient profit, quite obviously, the best and most efficient producers will go out of production. Horticultural production in this country will gradually decline, and we shall be dependent on imports. Quite apart from the effect on the balance of payments problem, we should become more dependent on foreign production, and, undoubtedly, prices will rise again.
So there we have to achieve a balance, and if I may, I would like to conclude with one comment on the best way of doing it. The quota system has been used as best and as honestly as it could be, but it is a rigid system. The Government, of course, are responsible for it, and, therefore, are bound, as my hon. Friend has said, to be blamed when it does not succeed in satisfying everybody.
I believe that in this very fluctuating field a more natural relationship is obviously desirable if it can be achieved. Of course, the case for the adjustment of tariffs has been put forward by the producers and has been carefully reviewed. I am hopeful that the substantial obstacles that will remain once the case is established may yet be solved.
My belief is that the right and proper relationship is to fix specific tariffs at a proper level which will serve the interests of both the consumer and the producer, when there will be a natural relationship between the home and imported produce. As I have said, I hope the substantial obstacles that still remain in the path may yet be removed.
In conclusion, I would point out that the horticultural producer in this country plays a very valuable part in our

economy. He brings valuable fruit and vegetables to our table. He has had a particularly hard time in the last two years, and it is my hope and belief that he may have a more fortunate time this year and in the future.

HALESOWEN TECHNICAL COLLEGE PRINCIPAL (DISMISSAL)

6.2 p.m.

Mr. Arthur Henderson: I desire to raise the case of Mr. Johnson Ball, the recently dismissed principal of the Halesowen Technical College. Mr. Ball resides in my constituency, although the school itself is situated in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Oldbury and Halesowen (Mr. Moyle). The facts are, as follows.
Mr. Ball was appointed principal of this school in 1938 at the age of 37. So far as I can gather his relations with the governors of the school were reasonably amicable during almost the whole of the 13 years following his appointment. I am informed that the minutes of the governors' meetings are punctuated with commendations about Mr. Ball and his staff over the whole period of his service, culminating in a final commendation in April last year, only two months before the present dispute arose between the governors and certain members of the teaching staff arising out of an interpretation of the 1951 Burnham scales.
Mr. Ball, apparently, supported the claims of the members of his staff, and, so far as I can tell, his attitude on this matter seems to be the genesis of the present trouble. It is interesting to note that in November, 1951, the dissatisfaction expressed by the members of the staff was contained in repeated resolutions and letters to the governors, and the pressure which appears to have been exerted by the teachers' associations resulted in a provisional settlement which confirmed the inadequacy of the potential awards by nearly doubling the special salary allowance.
But by this time relations between Mr. Ball and the governors, apparently as a result of his supporting his staff, had seriously deteriorated. The governors seem to have made it clear to him that they wished to get rid of him. On 28th


December, in reply to a letter sent by Mr. Ball's solicitor, a letter was sent on behalf of the Director of Education, the relevant parts of which I will read to the House. They are as follows:
No specific charge or complaint or adverse report is being made. There is, I will add, no reflection on Mr. Ball's moral character or on his academic qualification. The truth is that the Governors found him ' impossible to work with '; their confidence in his handling of personal relations has declined; they have found his manner and tone intolerable. Hence their request to him to consider finding another job and tendering his resignation.
It goes on:
To help you personally I will try to be a little more specific. Mr. Ball has publicly criticised his employers and has made it plain to 'the world' that he is not working at one with them.
I am advised that from Mr. Ball's point of view this refers to a speech which he made in relation to the non-provision of playing fields for his school and the transfer of certain ground to another school. The letter goes on:
He has told the Governors on many occasions that he is not in harmony with them, 'deploring their attitude,' referring to the Education Authority's 'crazy obstinacy.' etc.
I understand from Mr. Ball that he admits that in October last year, during this dispute over the wage scales, he made a critical reference to the governors. To continue the quote:
He has been difficult and unto-operative with the Director of Education. An example is over the recent settlement of teachers' salaries. Instead of helping the Education Authority to settle things amicably with the staff he seems to have been a 'trouble maker.' The Governors are not entirely satisfied with his sense of proportion. For example, they have had to consider the expulsion by him of a girl for reading 'Forever Amber'; the expelling of a 14 year old who did not attend for prayers; the caning of a whole batch of boys for an incident or incidents which occurred on a bus.
Mr. Ball's explanation of that allegation is that in 1946, six years ago, a girl was warned by him for typing and circulating in a mixed school most objectionable and obscene literature, and that within a few days was again found typing extracts from "Forever Amber," a book not found in Halesowen public library. I believe I am probably one of the few hon. Members of this House who has not read "Forever Amber," but the point is that this girl was not expelled only for typing extracts from this book, but be-

cause she had consistently disobeyed the instructions of her principal not to type extracts from this book or from books of a similar nature.
The letter goes on:
Generally he has obstinately failed to accept the position that he is the employee of the Education Authority and is employed to carry out their policy. He has, by his attitude, lost the confidence of the Governors.
The present unhappy situation is the result not of weeks but years of difficulties. A major factor has been Mr. Ball's own obstinate refusal to recognise the extent to which he has failed to retain the confidence of his Governors." 
Yet apart from commendations constantly appearing in the minutes of the governors, I have here a letter dated April of last year from the district clerk for education, only two months before this dispute arose. It says:
The Governors at their last meeting were intensely interested in your report on the forthcoming exhibition of pictures by the Green brothers. They appreciate the tenacity of purpose you have shown in carrying out the tremendous amount of historical research in this matter, and I was instructed to convey to you and to the members of your staff concerned the appreciation of the Governors for all this work and interest.
In October of last year the former chairman of the governors, County Alderman Parkes, wrote:
I pay full tribute to you and your staff for the untiring work you must have put in, compiling such a record (Catalogue of the Green Exhibition). I am very pleased that we have still men such as yourself and some of your staff, who, during the last year or so, have done a remarkable job in bringing to light the Green brothers and their work and placing them in their rightful position in our old town. I send you my esteem and respect.
The allegations, I suggest, are merely generalisations without any specific particulars to support them, except in the case of the girl who is supposed to have been expelled for reading "Forever Amber," and according to Mr. Ball was expelled for disobeying instructions which he gave on this matter; the expelling of a 14 year old boy who had not attended prayers after receiving instructions on several occasions to attend; and thirdly the caning of the boys, which was hardly a matter for terminating the employment of this headmaster.
I am advised that in 13 years there were only three occasions on which complaints were made to the governors on


these matters. The governors seem to have scraped the barrel by raking up incidents going back to 1946 in order to build a case against Mr. Ball, and I am bound to say that T find it somewhat thin and unconvincing.
I want to make it clear that I am not raising this case on legal grounds. As the Minister herself stated in reply to the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro), the interpretation of a contract is a matter to be determined by a court of law. It may well be the fact that proper notice of termination has been given to Mr. Ball.
But, even if that be so, that does not dispose of the case. Mr. Ball is a public servant with 20 years' service to his credit. The good name of the community may well be involved if it appears that a public servant has not had a square deal or that there is even a semblance of victimisation. Justice must not only he done but must appear to be done.
This case has been surrounded by a veil of mystery and secrecy. It has been considered by four separate bodies —the governors, on eight occasions, the education sub-committee for the county, the county education committee and finally the county council itself. On every single occasion it was considered behind closed doors. The county council only carried the decision to consider the case behind closed doors by 39 votes to 32. I think that that is evidence of the uneasiness of many members of the county council at the secrecy surrounding the case.
In addition, 14,000 citizens in the district have signed a petition in Mr. Ball's favour, and this has been supported by meetings of parents, trades councils and other public bodies. The public are obviously anxious and perturbed by this treatment of Mr. Ball. After 20 years in the teaching profession, 13 of them as a principal, he has now been thrown on to the scrap heap. He is within three years of his pension, and it is a very serious position for a man of his age, over 50, who is within three years of attaining his right to a pension, that he should be thrown out on to the scrap heap, in a position which, if this decision stands, makes it quite impossible to secure another appointment.

Mr. Gerald Nabarro: Can the right hon. and learned Gentleman clarify one point? In the event of Mr. Johnson Ball retiring now, is it the fact or otherwise that he would receive a modified pension?

Mr. Henderson: Yes, when he reaches 60 years of age, but now the most that he would be entitled to would be a return of his contributions. His dismissal, therefore, will mean loss of pension as it is inconceivable that he will secure another post.
I would refer to Section 1 of the 1944 Act which lays down that the duty of the Minister is
to secure the effective execution by the local authorities, under his control and direction, of the national policy for providing a varied and comprehensive educational service …
I want to make this suggestion from the point of view not only of Mr. Johnson Ball but of the county council itself. If the Minister can state categorically Low that she has investigated his case personally and is satisfied that justice has been done, speaking for myself, I would be content. If she has not done so, I would press her to make a personal investigation and publish her findings not only as to whether justice has been done to Mr. Ball but also as to whether it appears to have been done.
Of course, local authorities have their responsibilities and their difficulties, and this House must be careful before it seeks to interfere with them in their responsibilities; but surely it is also essential to ensure that public servants such as Mr. Johnson Ball are given some measure of protection. If the Minister cannot undertake to investigate this case, I would ask that she should consult with the county council on what steps can be taken to bring all the facts into the open so that the public can form their own conclusions on the merits of this case.

6.18 p.m.

Mr. Gerald Nabarro: The House will be grateful to the right hon. and learned Member for Rowley Regis and Tipton (Mr. A. Henderson) for seeking an opportunity, on this Adjournment to ventilate a matter of grave public concern not only in the right hon. and learned Gentleman's constituency and the constituency of the hon. Member for Old-bury and Halesowen (Mr. Moyle) but also


in my constituency. In the Kidderminster Parliamentary division many pupils of Mr. Johnson Ball reside, as well as many past pupils of the schools.
I think it fair to say that the right hon. and learned Gentleman gave a lucid resume and summary of all the circumstances relating to this sad case. I am going to confine my few remarks to voicing my reflections upon the actions of the county council in this matter and the position in this controversy of the Minister as representing the central Government.
First, with regard to the behaviour of the county council, which is, of course, the employing authority in this instance, there have been two public criticisms of their action. The first is that they considered the case of Mr. Johnson Ball behind closed doors, and the second is that the county council refused to publish the reasons for Mr. Johnson Ball's dismissal. All I can say in this House is that there are very sound reasons for the county council having taken those actions, and reasons to which not only the present Government but many previous Governments have always subscribed.
On the first point, I find upon investigation of the model standing orders published by the Ministry of Health, that local authorities are recommended by the National Joint Council for Local Authorities' Administrative, Professional and Technical Services that such matters as the personal terms of employment or the reasons for engagement or the reasons for dismissal of any individual servant of a county council shall not be discussed publicly. That is a model standing order of the Ministry of Health.
The second point is that it is agreed as a condition of tenure of all teachers—and when I say "agreed" I mean subscribed to by the teachers' representative bodies, the local authorities and the central Government—that all proceedings in relation to the employment of teachers should be held to be confidential until a decision of the local educational authority has been made and thereafter any publication should be restricted to the operative decision only. That means that the authority, in the terms of this general agreement between all the interested parties, is not required to publish the reasons for a dismissal, as in this case.
I want to pass from the attitude of the county council—which I believe to be one of the most scrupulous propriety in regard to the handling of this case, although I am not commenting upon the merits or demerits of Mr. Ball's claim because I am not qualified to know whether he is right or otherwise—to the position of the Minister. It has been suggested that the Minister should intervene in this matter under Section 68 of the Education Act of 1944. At this stage in this short debate I should like to read the relevant Section, which is quite short. It is as follows:
If the Minister is satisfied either on complaint by any person or otherwise, that any local education authority or the managers or governors of any county or voluntary school have acted or are proposing to act unreasonably with respect to the exercise of any power conferred or the performance of any duty imposed by or under this Act, he may, notwithstanding any enactment rendering the exercise of the power or the performance of the duty contingent upon the opinion of the authority or of the managers or governors, give such directions as to the exercise of the power or the performance of the duty as appear to him to be expedient.
The suggestions which have been made to the Minister are that she should give a direction to the Worcestershire County Council, which is the local education authority in this matter. I suggest that if the Minister did use her powers under this Act it would be tantamount to a gross affront to the established autonomy of the local authority in educational matters. Further, it would create a situation whereby the Minister herself would become the person responsible for the terms and conditions of employment, of pensions, of hiring and firing and associated matters for 300,000 teachers in this country.
I think that hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the House will agree that we in this House have always been strong supporters of the local authority having autonomy in matters of this sort, and I do not think that it would be correct for the Minister to give a direction in this instance. Such a direction would have the effect of destroying that autonomy.
It has also been suggested that the direction of the Minister might be for an inquiry into the circumstances of this case. I should like to speculate for one moment what would happen if an inquiry were held. The inquiry could do one of two things. It might find for the decision


of the county council or against that decision. If it found for the decision of the county council the position of Mr. Ball would be exactly as it is now. If it found against the decision of the county council, what sort of situation would arise?
Presumably pressure would then be brought to bear upon the Minister to order the reinstatement of this teacher in the face of an acclaimed decision of the county council, carried by a substantial majority, that the teacher should no longer be employed. That would lead to a direct conflict between central Government and autonomous local government and, in my view, would be a very undesirable state of affairs.
In conclusion, it has been suggested that this is a quite exceptional case. Indeed, it is exceptional in that it has received a great deal of publicity. I am not attaching blame or otherwise to anybody on that score, but the case has received an enormous amount of publicity. But in no other way is it exceptional. It is just one case of the dismissal of a head teacher or a school teacher. In the "Daily Mail" today—and this is to he found on the front page —I read the following:
Mr. Eric Longdon, for 24 years headmaster of Brackley Modern School, Northamptonshire, said last night: 'I have had a letter from the education committee telling me that I have been dismissed.' Excessive punishment of a child is alleged.
I remember a similar case of a headmaster being dismissed at Cheltenham some time ago. All cases are, in principle, the same.
I have the utmost sympathy with the many representations which have been made to me in this matter, and in my short intervention I have sought only to make one point. I would not have the central Government take any action or make any move which would tend to destroy the established autonomy of a local education authority. In this case the local education authority is the Worcestershire County Council. I have no means of assessing whether or not Mr. Johnson Ball is correct and I hope that the Minister, when he winds up the debate, will be able to clarify the situation and say whether or not Mr. Johnson Ball's recourse should not now be to the courts.

6.27 p.m.

Mr. Arthur Moyle: I am sure that I am echoing the sentiments of the House, Mr. Speaker, when I say that we are deeply grateful to you for arranging for the question of the dismissal of Mr. Johnson Ball to be ventilated on the Floor of the House this afternoon.
May I reaffirm the statement made by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rowley Regis and Tipton (Mr. A. Henderson), who opened the debate? Mr. Johnson Ball was the first principal appointed to the Halesowen Secondary Technical School, and I think I can express the views of hon. Members who represent Worcestershire when I say that, as a result of his work at this school, Halesowen Secondary Technical School is regarded as the finest school in the north of Worcestershire. Pupils are drawn not only from Halesowen but also from Bromsgrove and Kidderminster and other adjacent areas. Mr. Ball has a brilliant scholastic record and, speaking as the Member for the constituency concerned, I can testify to his popularity in the constituency.
What is so remarkable about the whole case is this. The British characteristic is never more charitably expressed than when it is enlisted in the service of the underdog, but even so, it is particularly noticeable that in this case the most prominent citizens in my constituency, men of experience of public life, have entered the lists in support of the headmaster of this school, because they have serious misgivings about the manner in which he has been dealt with. In short, it is their deep-seated conviction that justice has not been done in this matter.
For example, I have before me a letter —I shall not read it all—that was addressed to Mr. Johnson Ball as recently as 15th June, 1952, and sent him by the wife of his former director of education, Mr. Priestley, who, for a number of years, was director while Mr. Johnson Ball was at the Halesowen Technical School. This is what she says in this letter:
It appears that neither your professional skill nor your intellectual and moral integrity are called in question. I hope your Governors may even now recall their decision. I am asking my local county councillor, if your case does appear before the County Council, to do his best to secure you an impartial hearing.


Moreover, the Mayor of Halesowen himself took the chair at a public protest meeting at which about 500 people attended. Alderman Greene, the Mayor of Halesowen, was in the chair, and he sent Mr. Johnson Ball a letter in which he said, among other things—I shall not quote the letter fully:
When you were doing so well at the technical school … after reading of the wonderful things you had done, and after listening to some who were managers of your school praising you for your splendid work—and then to receive a letter from you stating that those same people were endeavouring to get you dismissed—well, I have not got over the shock yet. But I can assure you that if there is anything I can do I shall esteem it a pleasure to do so, because I have always found you honest and straightforward in all your dealings.
There are two prominent citizens of Worcestershire with two warm commendations of his work as the principal of the Halesowen Secondary Technical School.
In addition, 14,000 citizens signed a petition of protest against his dismissal, and those 14,000 people were disturbed, not because they were damning the county council, but because of the fact that no one—not even my right hon. and learned Friend and I—knows what are the reasons why such a drastic decision was taken that has led to Mr. Johnson Ball's dismissal from the technical school.

Mr. Nabarro: Nor do I.

Mr. William Ross: Then the hon. Gentleman had better say nothing.

Mr. Moyle: It is extraordinary that the whole of the teaching staff have entered a protest, which my right hon. and learned Friend and I have received, against Mr. Johnson Ball's dismissal. That is the background. Now this is my plea—and it is not on behalf of Mr. Johnson Ball. I make the plea on behalf of good administration in local government. I was rather surprised at the intervention of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro), in that he considered it bad policy on the part of the Minister to intervene. The fact is that at least 50 per cent. of the approved expenditure in education is met by the Treasury, and the rest is met by rates.

Mr. Ede: Sixty per cent of the teachers' salaries.

Mr. Moyle: Yes, 60 per cent. of the teachers' salaries. Therefore, it will not be establishing a precedent if the Minister of Education does intervene; provision is made for it under certain circumstances.
What has happened as a result of all this? Local education administrative authorities are in disrepute, particularly the Director of Education and the chairmen of the local governors, because it is alleged by people generally that the reasons which led to this action is—and this they feel in their hearts—that this man is a victim of some unexplained vendetta. So that confidence may be restored locally in the county education committee and in the local governors—and that is all that I think one can ask —in order that confidence may be restored in local education administration, and so that equity may be served in the case of Mr. Johnson Ball himself, I ask the Minister whether a public inquiry cannot be instituted. If not, I beg the Minister, in the interests of good administration and with a view to restoring local confidence, to investigate this case so that if the dismissal is upheld she will have at least the satisfaction of knowing from her own direct knowledge, as a result of her inquiries, that justice, in her view, has been served.

6.37 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Education (Mr. Kenneth Pickthorn): My right hon. Friend takes with extreme gravity all these questions of dismissal, and dismissal at this sort of age most particularly. I think that I can fairly summarise the speeches that have been made if I say that the right hon. and learned Member for Rowley Regis and Tipton (Mr. A. Henderson) put, I think quite fairly, as one would expect from one of his professional eminence, the  ex parte case, so to speak, for Mr. Johnson Ball. I do not use the expression  ex parte in an aggressive sense; that was plainly his proper function.
I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) put with equal fairness the argument for local autonomy in these matters. And the hon. Member for Oldbury and Halesowen (Mr. Moyle) put the point that local opinion


is extremely disquieted, and that if anything can be done about it something ought to be done about it. I will endeavour as shortly as I can to put what seem to me to be the principles concerned.
First of all, I think we need not really waste much time on this about the veil of mystery—which I think was the right hon. and learned Gentleman's phrase. The secrecy in the matter, in so far as there has been secrecy—and it is not a question-begging word—has been entirely in accordance with precedence, practice and agreements. I do not think there is really any doubt about that. Indeed, as lately as 5th July Mr. Johnson Ball said, I read in one of the local papers, that the last thing he wanted was publicity. He has got a great deal since—and I do not say that at all to blame him; in the position he is in it is not for me to judge whether he has been wise or unwise. I do not really think we need waste very much time on the publicity point. It really is a false point, though quite fairly taken at an earlier stage in the controversy, I think.
Then we come to the question of what are the Minister's duties in this sort of matter. Upon all the best advice I can get, the Minister's duties are not with the employer-employee relation, not with the appointment and dismissal of teachers. The Minister's duties are with the status of teachers, in the sense of their qualification and disqualification. So that, for instance, if a teacher is dismissed for reasons of certain kinds—moral reasons or professional incompetence—it becomes the duty of the dismissing authority so to inform the Minister, and the Minister has the extremely onerous and anxious task of deciding whether these things are to form permanent disqualifications or not. That is the Minister's duty in that case.
The Minister was not informed in this case that the reasons for dismissal were of that nature.  Ex abundanti cautela, if in a debate so educational I may drop into one of the learned languages, she did inquire whether that was so or not, and she was informed that that was not the case. I do not think that there is any doubt at all that there was no duty on the Minister to do more. I do not think that it is really suggested now that there is a duty on the Minister to do more.
With every respect for the hon. Member for Oldbury and Halesowen, I do not think that either of the two halves of his argument is really tenable. The one is that there is considerable local disquiet: I do not think that part is tenable, because what the local disquiet is about is the behaviour of the local authorities, and that really is the business of the local electors. Nor do I think the other half is tenable: that 60 per cent. of the teachers' salaries come from the Treasury  via my right hon. Friend and, therefore, my right hon. Friend is directly concerned in their appointment and in the ending of their contract. No doubt we should get more efficiency in some respects, if in some respects at greater cost, which I should consider excessive as I think everyone here would, and no doubt we could get advantages if we had that degree of centralisation which meant in this employer-employee relation there was always a direct appeal to the Minister; but the whole development of education in this country—

Mr. Moyle: if the hon. Gentleman were to find evidence along lines which I have indicated and which I consider is a real probability of this dismissal, adversely affecting the administration of education locally, would he then agree that intervention would be necessary?

Mr. Pickthorn: I am not arguing any general proposition, especially negative, as it was Charles I in Westminster Hall who said that any general negation is extremely difficult to prove; and I am not trying to say there never could be a case in which there might be so strong a  prima facie view that the L.E.A. was behaving unreasonably that it became the duty of the Minister to make specific inquiry and, if necessary, to issue an instruction. I do not argue that there never could be such a case. I say that to speak as if that would be the natural result of the combination of local disquiet with the Treasury grant would be to upset the whole of our development.
Sorry as we all are for Mr. Johnson Ball—and I do not wish to comment on the merits beyond this point—it is quite apparent that Mr. Johnson Ball has, in his time, done some service to the State, and quite obviously he is a man of intellectual distinctions, high qualifications


and great energy. It is a public loss if such a man's work is in any way interrupted, and extremely painful if his work should be interrupted by authority in a way that inflicts personal loss and, it may be, hardship upon him. I could say all that, but I think the argument which I thought had been suggested before, that Section 68 of the Statute ought obviously to be invoked, is not so strongly held now. At any rate, it was not specifically put this afternoon.

Mr. A. Henderson: Will the hon. Gentleman say a word about my last suggestion?

Mr. Pickthorn: Yes, Sir. I am coming to that in a moment.

Mr. George Wigg: Before the hon. Gentleman leaves the question of Section 68—

Mr. Speaker: I must point out that we are running into the time of the next debate.

Mr. Pickthorn: I do not want to waste time—

Mr. Wigg: My question will take only 10 seconds. Is it not Section 68 which gives the Minister the power to intervene if he wants to do so?

Mr. Pickthorn: That is a very shortened form of interpretation which must not, I think, be taken for authority; I do not wish to stop now and argue it. In principle and in general practice engagement and termination of engagement have always been matters wholly for L.E.A's. I have not been able to find—I am not a lawyer nor a lifelong administrator in education—a precedent—certainly not more than one very doubtful one—for intervention or even inquiry in a case like this.

Mr. Ross: The hon. Gentleman will find that there was one in Scotland last year.

Mr. Pickthorn: My responsibilities have taken me far but, providence be praised—I am sure Scotland would agree —not to Scotland.
I think that is all that I can properly say, especially as we have outrun time. My right hon. Friend will read with the most careful attention everything that has been said today. But I am not in a position to give any kind of assurance, and I am bound to warn the House that this might be the first step on a very slippery slope indeed. There are nearly 300,000 teachers and a considerable number of other employees whose relation is not with the Minister but with an employer elsewhere, and that those relations, or any high proportion of them, or such where local disquiet was noticeable, should come up for Ministerial decision, would, I think everyone in the House would on reflection agree, be a very great step indeed. If that step is to be taken I think it could only really be taken by the Education Bill, 1967, or whatever it might be, and really it could not be taken by administrative decision on an individual case, however regrettable that case, and however much we must all sympathise with both parties, both the people in Halesowen, who feel their education to be damaged, and with Mr. Ball himself.

Mr. Ede: The hon. Gentleman said that the Ministry had not been informed what was in the charge against Mr. Johnson Ball and that there was no allegation against his moral character. Were they informed what the charge actually was? That is what perturbs the friends of Mr. Johnson Ball. We cannot find out what the exact charges were.

Mr. Pickthorn: But the right hon. Gentleman knows better than I do that if that perturbs Mr. Johnson Ball's friends it perturbs the friends of everybody else whose contract has ever been ended in similar circumstances. That is asking for a particular and unique piece of information. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] That is so, I think.

Mr. Ede: The answer was really "yes" or "no"?

Mr. Pickthorn: I have given the answer in my words, and I think it is plain.

HISTORIC HOUSES (GOWERS REPORT)

6.50 p.m.

Mr. Arthur Colegate: I am grateful for the opportunity of bringing to the notice of the House the Gowers Report on Houses of Outstanding Historic or Architectural Interest. Before I go any further, may I say that the word "house" is used in that Report, and I so use it, as including not merely a hall, or mansion or a house but the gardens, parks, woods and lakes which serve to set off the building and form a very important part of the heritage of which I am speaking. There were great gardeners like Capability Brown and others who set these houses in settings which are really incomparable.
There is no need to argue the aesthetic importance of these houses, although I shall say a word or two about that. Before I come to that point, I should like to recapitulate what has happened in this House about the Gowers Report. The Report was published on 23rd June, 1950, and I took the opportunity, on the Report stage of the Finance Bill at that time, to move a new Clause designed to carry out its recommendations so far as Estate Duty was concerned. There was a short debate; naturally, it was very short. Everybody knows that in moving new Clauses to a Finance Bill one cannot hope to occupy very much time.
It was a very good debate, and Sir Stafford Cripps, who was then Chancellor, gave a very sympathetic reply indeed. That was only to be expected for after all it was Sir Stafford Cripps who appointed the Gowers Committee. I would point out that when he did so his terms of reference were not whether these houses should be preserved but how they should be preserved. In other words, he assumed, as I think we all may, that there was no question about the value of their preservation.
Sir Stafford Cripps pointed out in that debate that he wanted time to consider the matter; even more, he wanted time for other people to consider it, and to get general discussion so that there might eventually be more or less agreed proposals which could implement the Gowers Report. Unfortunately, no opportunity arose then or later, through the circumstances of Parliamentary conditions of the time, to have a debate.
The next thing that happened was that we had a written answer to a Parliamentary Question, of which I do not complain; again, it was due to the circumstances of the time. We then had, having had no debate at all, except on two other occasions on which I raised the matter, proposals put forward by the ex-Chancellor, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Gaitskell), in the form of a written reply to a Parliamentary Question.
There again, that was very difficult; it was not possible to ask a supplementary question, there was no debate on it and there was no possibility then of ascertaining the full meaning of those proposals. Had there been a debate, and had legislation been brought in, I have no doubt that we should have heard a full explanation of how the matter tied in, if I may use that expression, with the other proposals in the Gowers Report. Unfortunately, that written reply rejected the recommendations of the Gowers Report. There the matter has rested until a few days ago, when I asked a Question in the House.
One of the first things that I wish to ask the Government is that we should have, at a reasonably early opportunity, a debate on these proposals. In the short time at our disposal today that is quite impossible. There are many Members on both sides of the House who are very interested and very sympathetic to this matter, and whose contributions to a debate will be very valuable. There is no question that the proposals made by the Gowers Report are not such as would necessarily be accepted out of hand by any Government. They require a great deal of discussion. Any Chancellor of the Exchequer or Minister of Works who was putting forward proposals would pay considerable attention to the debate which would precede them in this House.
Not merely are these historic houses very beautiful, but they are one of the greatest heritages a nation can have. What is extraordinary is the rapidly growing public enjoyment of these places. In debates on industrial matters in this House we often talk about man-hours and I should like to apply the concept of man-hours to the enjoyment of these houses by the public. Last year, I understand, more than 100,000 people visited Chatsworth. An hon. Member of this


House has kindly informed me that in the case of his own historic house over 80,000 people visited it last year.
I speak as a tripper, and I think that on an average the time spent on such a visit is certainly three or four hours. In other words, Chatsworth has been enjoyed by the public for 400,000 man-hours. Even allowing for a good many guests, the family could not have enjoyed the property for more than 10 per cent. of that amount of time. I have estimates of the figures for a number of historic houses and it is true to say—I am talking of the greater houses—that the public derive at least five times as much enjoyment from the house and the park and lakes as do the owners who have to pay heavy taxation and bills for repairs.
It is quite clear, therefore, that anything we do about this question will not be a matter of creating a privileged group of people; privileged merely because they happen to have been born, not with golden spoons in their mouths but in the delightful circumstances of a nursery in a great historic mansion. I think we may take it that there will be a general feeling of satisfaction not merely in this House but throughout the country if the Government, with the assistance of the House, can devise a satisfactory scheme by which these houses can be preserved. At the moment I am talking of administrative measures. I am not allowed to refer to new legislation as I should be out of order. But there are considerable administrative powers in the possession of the Government and when I speak of "measures" I must be taken to be referring to administrative measures and not to legislation.
There will be a great degree of pleasure throughout the country if satisfactory measures are taken to preserve these houses and to prevent them falling into decay; and, at the same time provide adequate facilities for the public to enjoy both the houses and the surrounding grounds and parks. At the moment there is a serious threat. If I may quote from the Gowers Report itself, it states:
Under the burden of this accumulation of adverse circumstances … the resource to which an owner … naturally turns is the sale of the contents of the house piece by piece. But this only delays the inevitable end at the cost perhaps of the dispersal of fine collections of works of art. Sooner or later

the house becomes decrepit and the garden runs wild; the park timber is cut down and the beauty of the setting destroyed. Eventually the house itself is sold (if a purchaser can be found) and it may either be put to a use that ruins its remaining features of interest, or broken up for the sake of …
what the materials will fetch. That is a most serious threat. Many houses—I know of two myself—have been destroyed for the sake of the lead of the roof and the mahogany, the other woodwork, the bricks and stone, and so on. Unless that threat is removed quickly we may lose a large part of what we have inherited.
I should like to come to the proposals of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Leeds, South. I think that I shall be in order in commenting on them. The right hon. Gentleman announced that he could not accept the proposals of the Gowers Committee. Instead he proposed that the Minister of Works should have power to make grants and loans and even to have repair works done in appropriate cases. There was little in his statement except that. The announcement was received with dismay by many of those interested in this matter.
No body of persons is more fully acquainted with this problem than the National Trust. In their Report they make two interesting comments. They say:
The Council regret that the Government"—
That was the Government in 1950—
cannot see its way to adopt the recommendations of the Gowers Report.…
They point out that something ought to be done and they conclude by saying:
The Council wish to emphasise more earnestly than ever before the urgency of the problem. Each year sees the decay or disappearance of more great houses. Those that remain in private ownership are becoming increasingly difficult to maintain.
In other words, they were extremely disappointed, as many of us were, with these proposals. I freely admit that it is impossible to do justice to these proposals. They appeared in a short Written answer. Had there been a debate, the then Chancellor of the Exchequel might have put them in a different light. Of course, to a large extent, they may have been tied in with other proposals which might have remedied the situation.
But the situation is not to be remedied simply by grants or loans for repairs. The problem is much bigger than that. I am debarred by the rules of order from indicating all that should be done. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury could find no more delightful reading during the approaching Recess than the Gowers Report.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. John Boyd-Carpenter): I have read it.

Mr. Colegate: Then my hon. Friend knows what I am referring to. I hope that the proposals of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Leeds, South are now dead. I ask that this matter should be approached again with a fresh mind to see what can be done even in the present difficult circumstances.
The Government already possess considerable powers under different Acts. On paper the powers under the Town and Country Planning Act are most impressive, but as far as I can find out they are not being used or, if they are, they are used only to a limited extent. The same is true of the Ancient Monuments Act, which set up the Royal Commission on Ancient and Historical Monuments. They have some powers, as have the local authorities and the Ministry of Works.
It may be that the Ministry of Works and some of the other authorities are hampered by the Treasury. We understand the difficulties of tile time. I hope, however, that they will consider seriously whether more cannot be done than is being done now.
Among other things on which I should like information, which I hope I shall receive, is the question of what has been done in recording and listing the houses. Something, I know, has been done, but how is it getting on? Is anything being done to integrate the existing powers that the different Departments and authorities possess? That, surely, can be done without legislation. I see that the Financial Secretary shakes his head, but it is wonderful what we can do. Where there is a will there is a way, and we are astonished sometimes by the large administrative measures which can be taken by a Government when they are keen on them. I ask my hon. Friend to see if something cannot be done in that respect.
In conclusion, I ask, and I press very strongly, for an early opportunity of debating the whole matter, and I press the Treasury to provide sufficient funds to enable the existing powers to be utilised. This is a matter which the Government of the day ought to take very seriously. It is in the field of amenities, and no other problem is as important as this. We ought to take steps to save this great heritage before it is too late, not only for our own enjoyment, but for the enjoyment of those who come after us. Owing to the strain of the times, we cannot at present create a similar group of beautiful buildings, but we ought, and we can, preserve what we have inherited.

7.7 p.m.

Mr. Kenneth Robinson: I am sure that the House would wish to congratulate the hon. Member for Burton (Mr. Colegate) on raising this very important matter in an all too brief debate. This is a matter which concerns all sides of the House.
I am privileged to serve on the Executive Committee of the National Trust, and I can assure the House that the members of the National Trust are most anxious for an early solution of this problem. It was an urgent problem when Sir Stafford Cripps set up the Gowers Committee, and it was still more urgent when that Committee reported in 1950. It is even more pressing today.
I should like to take the history of the Gowers Report one stage further than that reached by the hon. Member for Burton. I do not agree with him about the proposals of the Labour Government. I think that, translated into law, they would have gone a good deal of the way towards solving the problem. My right hon. Friend the Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown) when Minister of Works, had legislation in an advanced stage of drafting, and it is not too much to say that, had there been no change of Government, legislation would now be on the Statute Book.
If I may give an illustration how big this problem is, I would remind the House that, in 1939, the National Trust drew up a list of 300 private houses for the benefit of the Government of the day. These were 300 houses not only worthy of preservation, but houses of the highest architectural importance. Each one was


unique in its way. Of these 300 houses, in the ensuing 12 years or so, some 20 or more have now been abandoned, destroyed or ruined, many more than this number have been turned to other than residential uses, and many of these uses are certainly contrary to the interests of public amenities. These are not merely private houses they are, indeed, part of our national heritage, and it is desirable that the public should have some access to the houses and to their surroundings.
The National Trust does what it can in this field, but what it can do is limited. For example, it can only accept what is offered to it, and it is also very strictly limited by financial considerations. In my view, Government action is desperately needed to save many of these national treasures from dilapidation and ruin, because the owners of many of them can no longer do this.
Few, out of their own pockets, can face the costs of maintenance and repair at present-day prices. They need help, but they are prepared in return, at least most of them are, I think, to allow public access to their properties. I think that the situation is very aptly summed up in a parody of a well-known verse which I came across in a magazine the other day:
A poor man in his castle
Brings trippers to his gate,
From whom he seeks the florins
To salvage his estate.
This is not the time to suggest exactly what measures the Government can take. For my part—and I must emphasise that I am now speaking purely personally—I cannot accept the Gower Committee's recommendations for relief of Income Tax and Surtax. I do not think they could be supported in the present situation at all, but some action must be taken.
There is a story about a certain Minister of Education of I believe, one of the countries of the Commonwealth, who was asked by a distinguished visitor what he was doing about culture. He said that he only knew three kinds of culture—agriculture, horticulture and physical culture—and that they were all doing very well.
I am not suggesting that the hon. Gentleman's attitude towards culture, or even that of his Government, is exactly the same as that of the gentleman I have

described. I do not think that, even in view of our somewhat unhappy memories of the Crown Film Unit and the closing of museums and art galleries. But I do say that the Government have this opportunity of doing something to redeem their somewhat tarnished reputation in the field of culture. I beg them to take early action before more of these beautiful houses fall into ruin.

7.13 p.m.

Mr. Nigel Nicolson: I think hon. Members in all parts of the House will agree that the Gowers Committee's Report deserved a better fate than to be brought up for discussion two years after its first publication, in the very last hours of the present Session. I support all those hon. Members who have already spoken in pressing the Government to arrange for an early and full debate on this subject, anticipated, if possible, by a White Paper, or, even better, by a Bill which will give effect to some at least of the recommendations contained in the Gowers Committee's Report.
I do not agree with the hon. Member for St. Pancras, North (Mr. K. Robinson) that their recommendations about tax concessions are impossible in days like these, and I would remind him that the principle of those concessions from Income Tax, Surtax and Estate Duty, has already been acknowledged in the provisions relating to the National Trust, of which he himself is a member.
All that the Gowers Committee's Report asks is that those concessions should be extended to cover many more, perhaps 10 times more, of the houses which are listed as national monuments and which the Trust itself cannot look after at the moment. One of the troubles lies in the expression "National Trust." The word "National" means to many people, whose ears are well attuned to it by this time, some form of State control or subsidy. There is no such control or subsidy.
The word "Trust" implies some funds existing in the background with which to subsidise these houses. No such funds exist. Therefore, we are at this moment seeing, as the hon. Gentleman so rightly said, many historic houses of all sizes and types, not only the greatest in the land, falling into decay simply for want of those funds which the State could


make available by the implementation of the main provisions of the Gowers Committee's Report.
I do not think that any hon. Member would represent the proposals made in the Gowers Committee's Report as an attempt to maintain a jaded aristocracy as stuffed dummies in their own mouldering manor houses. Indeed, the speeches already made on both sides show that there is no argument at all about the desirability of preserving these great national heritages. All that we are talking about is the possibility of preserving more than we are able to do at present. I have examined the list of these houses which have been destroyed for want of any such provisions. I might occupy two minutes to give the House some examples.
There is Westwood Park in Worcestershire, a late 16th century house. Permission has been asked for it to be demolished. There is Stoke Bruerne, in Northamptonshire, a house attributed to Inigo Jones, which is in grave danger of dilapidation.. There is Halnaby Hall, in Yorkshire, a 17th and 18th century house of great beauty for which permission for demolition has already been given. There is Rolls Park, in Essex, already destroyed. There is Whitley Beaumont, in the West Riding of Yorkshire, an Elizabethan and 18th century house, already destroyed.
Finally, there is an example which fits in perfectly with the argument I am trying to advance—the house of Ightham Mote, in Kent, which has fallen vacant owing to the death of the previous owner. The family have no funds with which to endow the preservation of the house through the National Trust. It is falling so rapidly into disrepair that if nothing is done before the autumn it may become irreparable.
This situation needs remedying as rapidly as possible. We have done a great deal through the Ministry of Works to preserve the records of our remoter past. The Bronze Age and the Stone Age are wonderfully preserved for all to see. Is my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to be known as a man who agrees to allow the relics of a finer age to go to ruin while these more uncouth monuments rise above the fields? Do not let us be known as an age which created Peacehaven while these and many other

houses of smaller size though not of smaller worth were allowed to decay. I ask my hon. Friend to assure us that action will be taken urgently to avoid this disaster.

7.18 p.m.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. John Boyd-Carpenter): I think that hon. Members will agree that, subject to the limitations both of time and subject on an Adjournment debate, this has been a very helpful discussion. I should like to join in the congratulations which have been very rightly accorded to my hon. Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Colegate) both for his choice of subject and for the very agreeable, sensitive, and interesting speech with which he used the opportunity which Mr. Speaker had given him.
It was particularly appropriate that he should do so because his interest in this subject goes back a considerable time and his knowledge of it is very deep. As he himself has said, this is a very difficult occasion on which to give this matter adequate discussion, and in that connection I would seek to answer the first of his questions. He indicated that there should be a debate on this subject. As the House is aware, that is not a matter for me to answer. The choice of debate depends either on the Leader of the House or, if the Opposition be so minded, on the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition in connection with Supply Days.

Mr. Ede: The trouble with a Supply Day would be that we should be still subject to the limitation with regard to legislation.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: That is perfectly true, but we should not be subject to the difficulty of length of time. In view of the very adroit way in which my hon. Friend the Member for Burton got over the first difficulty I should have thought that the second was the more serious of the difficulties with which we are faced tonight. I will see that what my hon. Friend said is considered by those concerned in this matter. It is a matter on which I can give no undertaking whatever. Speaking for myself, I should welcome the opportunity, because this is essentially a subject on which the general view of the House, I hope cutting right across party lines,


would be of very great value and assistance in the formulation of the necessary proposals.
I entirely agree with what my hon. Friend has said both as to the beauty and the value from the national point of view of these houses. If any hon. Member who is not familiar with the houses themselves reads the Gowers Report, he will be fortified in that view by the really superb photographs of some of the houses, which, I think most wisely, were attached to that Report and which make it—if I may take this opportunity of advertising the products of the Stationery Office—one of the best 3s. worth on the market.
We all start on the basis that this is a matter about which we are concerned, and I do not seek to underrate the urgency of the matter. We are in a period during which financial stringency has undoubtedly made it more and more difficult for the owners of these houses to maintain them in proper repair, and, as anyone who is familiar with the problems of handling even very much smaller houses is well aware, to some extent delay in repair and maintenance has a cumulative effect upon the stability of the structure. I do not, therefore, in any degree seek to underrate the urgency of the problem, and it is, as I say, for that reason most fortunate that we have had this discussion this evening.
I agree, too, with what my hon. Friend said about public enjoyment. I hope we are not going to discuss this matter from the narrow point of view of the few persons who, by birth or otherwise, have found themselves enjoying the somewhat arduous privilege, in these days, of living in or being the proprietors of these houses. It is true that as they have become more and more available to the public, the public has responded with quite surprising enthusiasm, particularly when one recalls the physical inaccessibility of many of them from the great centres of population.
Therefore, measures to deal with the problem will be treated by this House in due course as being an attempt not to support or help certain privileged people but to deal with the problem from the point of view that this is of national concern.

Dr. Barnett Stross: Would the hon. Gentleman bear in mind that even if some of these houses are in inaccessible places where they are visited rarely or by very few people, they may still have such merits that they ought to be preserved?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: By all means. I would not get involved in a question of Hegelian philosophy as to whether a beautiful building exists where nobody sees it. I do not wish to become involved with the hon. Member on those somewhat complex considerations, and in any case I doubt whether they would strictly be in order. It is important, however, when we are talking of the attitude of the public and of the Government towards these houses, to recall that a very large part of our fellow countrymen treat them, and properly so, as part of our national heritage.
The Gowers Report itself is a remarkable and interesting document, and I know that I shall be expressing the view of all hon. Members when I say how grateful we all are to the very distinguished people who worked on that Committee to produce that Report. Its recommendations fall into two main categories. One is the category of tax adjustments, and the second is the quite separate category of what it might be possible to do by direct Governmental action and support.
Dealing with the first of those categories. There is very great weight in the view expressed by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Gaitskell) last year as to the dangers of embarking, for however good a reason, upon discriminatory tax arrangements of this character. There is one exception—of which I think my hon. Friend the Member for Burton was the putative father—the provision in last year's Finance Bill with respect to Estate Duty on houses handed over to the National Trust; but, in general, it would cut right across the accepted canons of taxation if special tax adjustments were to be made in favour of individuals by reason of the fact that they happened to be the proprietors or inhabitants of beautiful or ancient houses.
It would be a complete traverse of the normal principle of taxation, particularly direct taxation, and I must say that


there is a great deal of force in what was said on this issue by the right hon. Member for Leeds, South in the written reply to which my hon. Friend referred a few moments ago.
That brings me to the second half of the Report—the part dealing with the practical or direct steps that might be taken. Here we come up against the difficulty which I foresaw a few moments ago—that they would require legislation. I shall, therefore, have to try to copy the adroitness of my hon. Friend in avoiding the displeasure of the Chair and saying as much as I can before that displeasure becomes too conspicuously manifest.
I must point out that such powers as exist at the moment—I am speaking without the book, but I am almost certain of this—are completely dependent upon statute. Therefore, any re-arrangement between various Departments of State would require legislation. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works is more directly interested and informed upon that aspect of the matter, hut I do not think I am misleading the House in saying that, in general, the transfer of the present powers as between Departments is dependent upon statute and, therefore, could only be effected by statute.

Mr. Ede: Cannot it be done by Statutory Instrument, under the Ministers of the Crown (Transfer of Functions) Act?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman is correct in a case where the power is expressly conferred by statute. My recollection is that these particular powers are conferred on a particular Minister by statute and could only be transferred by statute. But I hope that we are not going to be worried too much this evening about the technicalities of the matter.
We are at least as anxious as were our predecessors to secure the preservation of these houses, their contents and gardens, and we are anxious to do whatever can be done to help in present circumstances. What can be done is limited both by financial considerations, up to a point, and

equally by the availability of Parliamentary time from the point of view of the situation which I must not mention.
The fact that we may not be able to move as quickly or as far as we would wish does not mean that the problem has been put on one side. In fact, we are doing what my hon. Friend asked us to do a few moments ago. We are looking afresh at the proposals which we inherited from our predecessors, at the powers which at present exist and the position as a whole, and we are studying this matter in the light of the Gowers Report and all those matters which I have mentioned.
We appreciate that nothing effectual can be done without funds and I am glad to be able to tell the House—and particularly to reply to the question my hon. Friend asked me—that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has recognised that when a suitable scheme for the carrying out of the work of preservation can be embodied in appropriate legislation it will be necessary for him to give it life by a cash provision and although the sum will have to be limited, he has expressed his readiness so to do. In reply to a further question, in addition to what I have just said he certainly does not rule out the possibility, contemplated, as I understand it, by our predecessors, of a limited use of the National Land Fund in respect of public acquisition.
That I cannot at this stage be more specific or more definite is due to causes of which the House is very well aware, but I hope I have made it clear that we are now examining the best way in which the responsibility of the State to give positive help can be recognised in practice and the means by which the limited resources which we can make available can be enabled to have their maximum effect. I think that will indicate to the House that we treat this as a serious and urgent problem, and the statement which I have been authorised to make about the attitude to this question of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor indicates, I think, that we are in earnest about the matter.

AMERICAN-STYLE COMICS

7.32 p.m.

Mr. Maurice Edelman: I am obliged to you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, for the opportunity to raise again the question of the pernicious and harmful effects of the circulation of American-style comics in this country. My only regret is that my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham, South (Mr. Elwyn Jones), with whom I am associated in raising the matter, is, for personal reasons, unhappily unable to be here today to support me.
When I last drew attention to the harmful effects of the circulation of American-style comics, I received from the Joint Under-Secretary of State to the Home Department a rather anodyne and complacent reply, but since that time the amount of attention and the extreme anxiety which has been shown throughout the country about the deleterious consequences of the publication and circulation of this type of comic paper has encouraged me to bring the matter once again to the attention of the Joint Under-Secretary of State in the hope that he will he willing to initiate some further action.
Let me say at the outset that in raising the matter I am not advocating any form of literary censorship. As one who is personally engaged in the profession of writing I must declare a personal interest, but even if that were not so, I should still say that I regard literary censorship as always harmful. I consider that any form of censorship for literature which has ever been established has been harmful in its consequences and a laughing stock before history.
I want to make one other point, and it is that although I refer to these comics as American-style comics, they are printed and published not only in America but also in this country, and I should be the last person to allow the term "American-style comic" to be used as an excuse by those who seek some stick with which to beat the Americans for adding another weapon to their armoury. On the contrary, it has already become clear that in America itself parents and teachers have the gravest anxieties about the circulation of this type of reading matter and the effect which it has on children.
I am informed that in Cincinnati a board has been set up known as the Evaluation Committee for Comics—a voluntary board—which has as its purpose to try to assess the various comic papers which are published and to try to give some kind of guidance to parents and teachers in this matter. Even in this country a small and valuable committee of writers has been formed with the idea of giving similar guidance to parents, teachers, and the publishing trade.
But the problem is rapidly becoming a national one, and for these reasons it seems to me that it would be wholly inadequate were the handling of this problem left in the hands of a few voluntary workers, and my purpose tonight is to apprise the Joint Under-Secretary of State, the House, and the country generally of the exact nature of this problem, and to urge that some more drastic action should be taken in order to deal with it.
The Joint Under-Secretary of State has already said that the importation in bulk of these comics from the United States and from Europe has been stopped, and I welcome that affirmation, but although that is the case, the importation and use of matrices manufactured abroad has continued, and comic papers which are being published in this country are being printed from the material which either has been imported or is being imported to this very day.
It is notorious that, in order to make the substantial profits which the purveyors of this reading matter are, in fact, making, they have to publish runs of between 50,000 and 100,000 copies, and it has been estimated by the committee to which I have referred that no fewer than 30 million objectionable copies of comics of this style are put into circulation each year, and businessmen who see the profitability of this trade are enlarging it, so that we may in future, unless some action is taken, expect that that figure of 30 million—that threatening figure of 30 million—will expand, and probably eat well into the current market for comics, which has been estimated at 400 million copies per year.
Let me, without wishing to harrow the House, give some illustrations of the type of comic paper which is being printed in this country. I want to quote only


from some of the captions to these strip cartoons that are used in these papers in order to give the House an idea of the sadism which is the dominant characteristic of these so-called comics. Let me quote one paper called "The Manhunt," which has a characteristic caption which says of some unfortunate person:
He was dipped into a chemical vat … his skin quickly tightened and split. Already starved, he looked like a skeleton when he was pulled up.
Now here is another from the same paper:
Letty leaps forward, hurls herself straight at the glittering harpoon-head. She screams … gurgles … chokes.
The hero hits the villain over the head with a log and says:
You murdering mucker. I'd like to take you apart with my bare hands.
Finally there is a picture of a cross over a grave marked "Letty."
That is the type of comic paper which is being sold in shops and purchased by children of all ages. I do not want to multiply the examples, but I should just like to give a typical example of the sort of caption used by those papers which can have a horrifying effect. Let me quote from a comic called "Eerie":
The Thing picked up the body of the unfortunate girl and threw it into an underground pit filled with sulphurous smoke.… From out of that pit rose corpse after corpse … shrunken … withered.…
I could go on indefinitely giving examples and illustrations of this kind. I do not want to do so, and I merely give them to give the House some idea of the terrifying effect which not only the captions but—perhaps even more—the illustrations in those comics have upon children. I do not want to use too many examples of the actual magazines, but here I should like to show the House a type of the pictures used, and in a comic which is being sold literally in hundreds of thousands up and down the country today. Here is a picture of a skeleton with a half naked girl in some kind of container, and underneath is written:
The Horror from the Pit. The Werewolf of Marsham Manor. The King of the Living Dead. The Subway Horror.
I do not intend to develop the illustrations I have already quoted. I think I have already said enough to show that at the present time there is no protection

at all for a child from this type of reading matter.
Up and down the country parents and school teachers are deeply exercised in their minds about the consequences of these publications on children. It is perfectly true that they were brought to this country in the first instance by American forces. They were widely read by American troops, but very rapidly it was found by publishers—disreputable publishers in my view—that there was a considerable market for this type of horror and sadistic literature; literature which glorifies the brute, literature which undermines the law simply because it suggests that the superman is the person who should take the law into his own hands and mete out justice in his own way. The most sinister thing about these publications is that they introduce the element of pleasure into violence. They encourage sadism; and they encourage sadism in association with an unhealthy sexual stimulation.
Now, no one is able at the present time to say whether there is any association between material of this kind and juvenile delinquency. Nobody can say so simply because there has not been an adequate inquiry. But what one can say is that individual magistrates up and down the country have found that certain juvenile delinquents who have engaged in acts of violence do use this type of so-called comic material as their favourite reading matter.
Only a few minutes ago my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale (Mr. Anthony Greenwood) informed me that when he was sitting on the bench only recently he was obliged to mete out justice to a number of juveniles who were charged with attacking another child on Hampstead Heath. Later on it was discovered by the court that they had in their possession American-style comics of the kind I have just described, and their crime was in fact imitative. They had seen the glorification of violence as illustrated in these comics; they had seen how the heroes used the rope, the dagger, the knife and the gun: they had seen how they were glorified, and they simply imitated the example of the heroes portrayed in these lurid publications.
There is clearly an obvious case for inquiry by the Home Office. I submit to the Under-Secretary that it is not


enough for him simply to say, "Well, we must leave the matter to the parent and the school teacher." The fact is that some parents have both the enlightenment and the time to guide and direct the cultural tastes and interests of their children, but there are many parents, working parents in particular, who are so occupied with the daily struggle for life that they have not the opportunity of giving this detailed instruction, this detailed care, to the child in its cultural pursuits. Consequently, I can well imagine that a child on its way to an elementary school walking along the back streets of any town in the country—because this thing has become a national big business—will be attracted by the garish covers of these magazines and so-called comic papers in the shop windows, and will go in and purchase them.
One of the most alarming facts of this particular situation is the tremendous amount of profit which exists in their sale. It has been established by the committee, which I have already quoted twice, that the average cost of the matrices for a whole publication of this kind is something like £60 or so. When we consider that many of these publications are sold for 6d. or 1s. 0d. and that the number published is between 50,000 and 100,000, it is easy to see that there is considerable profit on this type of vice.
No one wants to interfere with the liberty of free speech or with the liberty of the adult to read whatever he wishes. As adults we have the responsibility and the obligation to discriminate between right and wrong and good and bad. All that I am asking the Joint Under-Secretary to consider is whether or not children should be protected from the insidious and pernicious effect of this type of reading. I submit that it is not enough for him to say, "We will simply leave it to the parents and the teachers." That is not enough.
Not only does this matter require time, but it also requires to a great extent the opportunity of purchasing the right kind of reading material for children. Therefore I submit as a practical proposal to the Joint Under-Secretary—and I hope that he will take this into account—that the Home Office should set up a panel of educationists, of parents, of lawyers and magistrates and

all those who are concerned at this problem, not for the purpose of censoring publications but to do precisely what is being done by the Evaluation Committee in Cincinnatti, namely, to draw up a list of comic papers as they appear, specifying all those which are unexceptionable, all those which are objectionable and all those which are so seriously objectionable that they may well do damage to the child. If he will do that he would make a substantial start towards persuading not only parents and teachers—I know he wants to do that—but, even more than that, persuading the trade to take the necessary action not to handle material of this kind.
Already reputable firms like the leading distributors will not touch this type of sadistic pornography, but none the less there are a large number of retailers up and down the country who will do so. I submit to the Joint Under-Secretary that a panel of the kind I have suggested, and for which there is already wide support in the country, would be able to reinforce the guidance which he has already recommended and with which he has stated he is in sympathy.
Before I conclude, let me say this. Many of my own generation remember the comics which charmed our childhood like "Comic Cuts" and "Rainbow," with characters like "Jumbo" and anthropomorphic characters which did nothing but good to those children who read about their antics in those multicoloured publications. It is not my intention in any way to discourage the publication of comics of that kind. On the contrary, it is my purpose to suggest that one of the objects of the Home Office in putting down the publication of this shameful type of reading matter should be to give such guidance to parents, to teachers and to the publication trade generally that eventually we may once again have wholesome publications for our children.

7.49 p.m.

Dr. Horace King: I am glad indeed to have the opportunity of supporting the case which has been so ably made by my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, North (Mr. Edelman). Like most people in this House, I am against censorship of all kinds for grown-ups, but we have always been able to reconcile our passion for


freedom with a desire and determination to protect our own children. By law, we say that a man may go into a public house, but we prevent a child from going into a public house. By law we permit the showing of a film like "La Ronde" which equates men's sexual emotions with those of a monkey, but we prevent all children under 16 from going to see it.
One of the most important tasks of our educators at the moment is to preserve as long as possible our young children from the full impact of the cheap and commercial civilisation into which they are plunged once they leave school. I believe that we shall soon have to do something to protect delicate and tender minds from the harmful effects of some films—even though the films have received a "U" certificate. Any hon. Member who saw the exhibition in the Library of infra-red photographs of the reactions of young children to the more violent scenes that they saw at the cinema must agree that we shall have to do something very quickly to implement the recommendations which the Wheare Committee recently made on the need for providing the proper kind of films for children and for protecting the youngest of our children from witnessing scenes of violence.
I only wish we could record in the way those infra-red photographs did some of the effects of the impact of the nastier comic literature on the minds of our children. I suggest that that impact is probably not unconnected with the enormous number of crimes—some 28,000— reported in the Home Office's recent set of criminal statistics as having been committed by children under the age of 14.
We are not spoil-sports. We would not even say that the charge that we make against the worst type of American comics is because of their pornographic content; it is the fact that they link sex with violence, that they have a brutalising and degrading effect on the finer emotions, and that, as my hon. Friend has pointed out, they are sadistic in their approach to life and almost glory in cruelty.
Children take things literally. They accept the grown-up world as it is presented to them on trust from adults. I believe the State ought to behave like a good parent to its children and that we should take some care that the intellectual and emotional food which is provided for them in the State is wholesome.
We are living in an age when we give our teachers a far more difficult task than ever before. It is a world of crazy and cheap values. In such a world we are asking our teachers to help the children to appreciate the finer points of life, the value of kindness, tenderness, thoughtfulness, restraint and delicacy, the importance of the choice of words, the magic of Shakespeare, the joy of craftsmanship, the value of accuracy in scientific experiments, the beauty of a sunset or a storm, and the rich depths of human relationship.
Yet the moment young children leave school at 4 o'clock—indeed, sometimes even under the school desks before they leave—they are being submitted to the emotional impact of a scene of lust, violence and slaughter not unlike that provided in the "News of the World" on Sunday but reinforced and made far more effective by the methods of illustration and the crude captions that are used. If we can protect our children from whisky and horrific films we can surely protect them from the brutality of the worst comic papers, even if it means—I go further than my hon. Friend here—that we should deprive our grownups of the doubtful pleasure of reading such sensational literature more critically.
If we are not careful our youngsters will lose much of what civilisation has handed down to us. I believe, for example, that we have only maintained the English Christmas, we have only maintained all the wonder of Christmas carols and the traditions around Christmas by the work of Charles Dickens 100 years ago, on the one hand, and by the work of our teachers in our schools in this century on the other.
We should assist our schools in their struggle, against heavy odds, to preserve what is a very rich culture. I understand—I am not an economist—that there is a law in economics to the effect that counterfeit currency in time pushes out of circulation the higher and more genuine currency; and unless we are careful about this matter it seems to me that the cheap and sensational will push the finer literature out of the minds and experience of our children. We want to keep our English ways. What we get from America is not the best of American life, the natural American culture that exists in a million homes in that country,


but all that is worst from America both in scenes portrayed in the films and in this particularly cheap and nasty literature which is coming over.
We have our own comics, we have our own good fun, our own long pattern of children's literature, of children's stories and of children's mythology. It seems to me that we shall be doing the children of England and doing our own culture a great service, and that we shall be helping the teaching profession if the Home Secretary will in some way or other begin to indicate that his Department is prepared to grapple with this problem.

7.57 p.m.

Mrs. Jean Mann: I am very glad that my hon. Friends have introduced this subject In the House tonight, because I know that it is causing a great deal of anxiety among the parents of this country and many of them just do not know what action to take. I can remember being a member of the libraries committee of the Glasgow Town Council for a number of years, and there were often derisive references to the committee who censored books for the adult population, particularly when the newspapers reported that each magistrate had to read through the book. Very often, when the result was the banning of a book, and publicity was given to it, it was found that we were really giving a great boost to the book concerned.
It seems a far cry to these days when, going through the city of Glasgow, I find these terrible magazines being prominently displayed, but, may I say, not in reputable shops. I wonder whether it would not be very easy to stop this trade or traffic. We must all be agreed that the time has come to do something about it. We took such measures regarding literature for adults, and now we are permitting this kind of literature to circulate freely in our secondary schools and in our public schools—and I use the adjective in both senses of the word.
They come in surreptitiously inside a school bag; and, strange to say, by word of mouth all over the school the shops that sell them become known. The children go to those shops and bring these magazines even into their own homes. I am afraid that very often when Johnny is upstairs, supposed to be

studying higher French, or lower French, mother may make an investigation and will find that this kind of literature is more attractive.
They are sold in all kinds of peculiar places, such as fish and chip shops and stamp collecting shops. Shops have opened up in thoroughfares which are quite unfrequented and hitherto would have been regarded as a very poor speculation for a shop site. These shops have opened up in many of our cities and mainly in back streets. It would be a good thing, I think, if they could be raided occasionally; or even if it were known that the police could make a swoop and take the whole of their pernicious literature. It would be very gratifying indeed if the Government could see their way to take active steps to stop the poisoning of the minds of our children and of our adolescents.

8.2 p.m.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Sir Hugh Lucas-Tooth): I am glad that this subject has been raised and that I have the opportunity of giving the point of view of the Government upon it. Perhaps I should say that I can properly speak only for England and Wales. The law in Scotland is different, and, therefore, I cannot give a full answer to the hon. Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie (Mrs. Mann). She will have to tackle one of my hon. Friends about it on another occasion.
I quite agree with what has been said by hon. Members, that many of these magazines and publications are of a most objectionable character. I do not think there is any doubt about that. The hon. Member for Coventry, North (Mr. Edelman) referred specifically to one or two. Many of them are in the worst possible taste, to say the least of it, and verge on the obscene.
But there is nothing new in children liking adventure stories with a strong element of violence in them. For generations they have revelled in such stories without suffering any apparent harm. The works of Stevenson, Henty and Ballantyne, and many other authors, contain scenes of great vigour and, indeed, of violence. I think they have been enjoyed by children and have certainly not done them any harm.
The peculiarity of the publications we are now considering is the emphasis they place on violence as such. Second—and this I think is of great importance—they 'have reduced the letter-press to almost insignificant proportions. The ordinary "comic," while it may not be of very much value in itself did at least teach the children using it to read, but with these publications it is almost unnecessary to be able to read in order to get the sense of what is depicted. They also use a crude and alien idiom to which all of us take exception.
The question posed by all hon. Members who have spoken is: what Government action is desirable in the circumstances? I think that first I must answer another question: what Government action is possible in the circumstances?
There are three kinds of action which have been canvassed. First, there is the physical action—the prevention of the import of these publications. As I told the House in answer to a Question by the hon. Member for Coventry, North recently, there have not been any imports from America at all material times. There has been a general prohibition of bulk imports of this class of publication. That prohibition has not been for the sort of reason that we have been discussing. It has been for currency reasons. Nevertheless, there has been a prohibition.
It is true that a certain number of these publications may have found their way here. Separate copies may have been brought by different people, and so on, but there have been virtually no imports from America. On 11th March of this year the import of these publications—and by that I mean publications of this class generally and not of the objectionable type only—has been forbidden from Europe as well.
It would probably be true to say that the old stocks are running out, that the previously concluded contracts are coming to an end and that very few indeed of these publications are coming here from Europe. It is probably true to say that virtually all the publications now being sold are printed and published in this country. Therefore, so far as the physical prevention of imports is concerned, nothing more can be done, and I do not think that the hon. Member really

suggested that it was possible to do more. There is the possibility of the statutory prevention of the publication and sale of these comics.
I think that I should say something about the legal position in England and Wales. Obscenity is a common law offence which is punishable as a misdemeanour. There is no statutory offence of obscenity. There is the Obscene Publications Act of 1857, but that merely provides a special statutory remedy enabling the police to seize and destroy obscene matter with the consent of the court. The court would have to be satisfied that the matter was obscene within the common law meaning of the word.
If a document is obscene there is no difficulty about taking appropriate action to suppress it. So-called American comics have been submitted to the Director of Public Prosecutions on a number of occasions and he has always firmly advised that they could not form the basis of a successful prosecution. They are not obscene within the meaning of the law. It has been suggested that it might be desirable to amend the definition of the word "obscene" and to extend it in some way to cover these publications.
I want to say a few words about the difficulty involved there. The hon. Member for Coventry, North referred to them as American comics—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Hopkin Morris): I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman is approaching the sphere of legislation.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: I do not propose to suggest legislation. I am merely stating the law on this subject and the difficulties which arise because of the law. I do not think that I shall step over the boundary. Mr. Deputy-Speaker.

Lieut.-Colonel Marcus Lipton: Perhaps it would help the hon. Gentleman if he made it clear that legislation on this subject is virtually impossible and that, therefore, his comments would come within the rules of order on Adjournment debates.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: The hon. and gallant Gentleman has anticipated what was in my mind.
The very phrase used—"American comics"—shows how impossible it is to define this type of publication. They are


not American, as everyone agrees, and they certainly are not comics in any sense of the word.

Mr. Edelman: I think the actual term is "American-style comics."

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: Even so, I think the expression "American-style comics" is quite inapt to describe these particular magazines.
It is true, of course, that attempts have been made in other countries—and the hon. Member for Coventry, North mentioned it in a Question the other day—to deal with this matter by statute. In particular, there is a Canadian statute which banns
Any magazine, periodical or book which exclusively or substantially comprises matter depicting pictorially the commission of crime, real or fictitious.
Presumably, that is the best definition that the Canadian Legislature has been able to devise to deal with this subject.
I think it will be immediately obvious to hon. Members that, if there was such an Act on the Statute Book here, it would be quite inapplicable to deal with what we are now considering. If I remember rightly,
Tom, Tom, the Piper's son,
Stole a pig and away he ran,
and any child's book which had a picture of Tom and the pig would, by statute, be obscene if we tried to implement such an Act here. Conversely, of course, a large number of the comics deal with matters which are not, in any sense, crimes. They contain loathsome pictures of warfare and violence, but not necessarily of criminal matters. If we tried to deal with that matter by legislation, we should only exclude a certain number of subjects and the others would appear just as before.
There have been other attempts made, but I can assure the House that they do not appear to be any more satisfactory, and I think it is fair to say that it is virtually impossible by statute to seek to define what it is that we want to control in this context.

Mr. Edelman: I wonder if the hon. Gentleman will give the House the benefit of his knowledge on the experience of Sweden, which, I believe, also banned the publication of this type of literature.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: I have made inquiries about that. Unfortunately, I have not been able to get the exact terms of the Swedish Act, but I am advised that it is in such terms that, if it were on the Statute Book here, it would be treated as unenforceable by our courts. They have a different system of justice on the Continent of Europe and their interpretation of laws is generally of a less strict character than ours here, and it may be that what is possible in Sweden in that respect is impossible here. I have not the exact words with me, but I am advised that the wording there would be quite inapt for our purpose here.
The other method by which Government action might be taken is to set up something in the nature of a censorship. Hon. Members opposite said very firmly that they were entirely against the censorship, and I was glad to hear it. I am certain that that would be the almost unanimous view of this House.
When it comes to making definite suggestions, a good deal of what they have suggested came very nearly to something like a censorship, and an analogy was made, I think by the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Dr. King), with the film censorship. He asked why we could not have something like that. May I say, in the first place, that the censorship of films, of course, only classifies films. There are the U, A and X films —Universal, Adults Only and Horrific. Of course, it might be possible with a very large staff to classify magazines and other literature of that sort in this country, but that would not get us very far.
The real essence of the film censorship is the ultimate power to forbid children or others to go into a cinema. It is quite easy to forbid a person to go into a building, whether it be a cinema or a public-house, but it is entirely different to forbid the sale of particular articles. I think that hon. Members will see on reflection that if one once starts to forbid the sale of particular articles as classified, one would at once have to have something like a licensing system for newsvendors and bookshops which would mean being two-thirds of the way on the road towards a general censorship of literature.
Therefore, the suggestions which have been made—and I have no doubt made


in perfectly good faith—really imply that there would have to be something like a censorship set up. I believe, as the hon. Member for Coventry, North rightly said, that all censorships are either oppressive or ridiculous, or both, and that anything remotely approaching a censorship would be anathema to this House.
I beg the House to keep a sense of proportion with regard to this problem. At the risk of being charged with complacency, I think there has been some exaggeration of this matter. Take the case of Alan Poole, the Borstal absconder who shot a policeman and was himself then killed resisting arrest. In that case it was reported in the Press that he had a library of 50 of these comics. Indeed, a social worker said that he had a collection of over 300.
The Home Office were extremely interested in this matter. They did not take it for granted. We asked the police if we could have these publications so that we could see and try and trace the connection. But, in spite of all that publicity, we found that this particular lad had one "Western" in his possession, and that not a very alarming one. That was the position.
To demonstrate the misunderstanding, may I say that since I answered some Questions in this House on the subject I have had a considerable "fan mail" saying, "Stop these publications coming in." I think the hon. Member for Coventry, North would agree that the one thing I made perfectly plain in my answer was that we had stopped them. That shows that there is some misunderstanding and some exaggeration. It is easy to lay the blame for the present quantity of juvenile crime on these publications, but I think it is evident from this debate that no real evidence of a direct connection has been brought forward. One can make assumptions, but we have no evidence.
I shall be glad to receive any evidence which any hon. Member can bring forward, and it will certainly receive the closest attention in the Home Office. I reiterate that the changing social and economic conditions of the country have thrown, and are throwing, a greater responsibility upon the Government in matters affecting moral welfare. Nevertheless, responsibility for the moral welfare of a child must primarily rest with

its parents and teachers. There is a limit, and a proper limit, to what the law or a Government Department can do in this field. I have tried to indicate that that limit is a fairly narrow one. I believe it lies within the power of parents and of teachers to see that this undoubtedly unpleasant form of literature does little or no harm to our children.

NATIONAL SERVICE MAN (TREATMENT)

8.20 p.m.

Mr. James Simmons: We are coming to the last lap of our series of Adjournments. To look round the House is to me reminiscent of the days 40 odd years ago when I started to take part in Socialist propaganda and addressed three men and a dog. Today only the dog is missing. I raise the question of the National Service of a constituent of mine because I feel that it is not only of importance for this National Service man and his parents but is important for all parents who have sons serving in Her Majesty's Forces.
Gunner Shillingford was called to National Service in March, 1950. After a very few months' service he collapsed on the parade ground at Oswestry. After a few days he was sent home on 48 hours leave. His parents, alarmed at his condition, decided that he ought to see his own doctor. His doctor was horrified that he had been allowed to travel and said that he was to be put to bed immediately. He had a week at home, two weeks in a hospital with a bleeding lung, and then went to Chester hospital from which he was sent to a sanatorium in Surrey and then to Colchester.
This was his first initiation into the field of National Service. Gray's Camp at Colchester has a very bad name with National Service men and, while in the military hospital, this lad was scared by some of the stories told to him by fellow patients who had been in this notorious Gray's Camp. So eventually when he left hospital he went absent without leave. Thereafter he went absent without leave several times because his mother was very ill and he was anxious to go and see her. He was given several periods of detention ranging up to 48 days. He served one period of 28 days for refusing


to undergo an operation. This he refused, on the advice of his father, who was a very fine soldier in the Sherwood Foresters in the 1914–18 war and who served in the Worcestershires as a volunteer in the last war. On one occasion the boy was given 48 days' detention for two days' absence.
Most of his offences took place after his two years service had expired and he was kept on to cover the periods of detention he had suffered. The father wrote to his son's commanding officer outlining the boy's background, his difficulties and his mental development. The C.O. had the lad brought in front of him and told him, "It would be better for you if you were dead."
After this sympathetic treatment by his commanding officer the lad went absent without leave again, sleeping in fields, eating grass and begging coppers to buy food. His father heard about it, searched the countryside, found him and handed him over to the police to be sent back to his unit. This lad was eventually taken under military escort to Brierley Hill Police Station under a charge of defrauding the Post Office Savings Department. He was sentenced to four months imprisonment which he is now serving. I have been in communication with the Under-Secretary for several months and there has not been one spark of understanding or human feeling displayed by the War Office "wallahs" during the whole of the time.
This youth was mainly illiterate. He could not read or write properly before he went into the Army. He had never had regular employment owing to ill health. He was at some racing stables for six months. He occasionally drove a lorry for his father, but owing to his ill health he bad never had regular employment.

Lieut.-Colonel Marcus Lipton: Would my hon. Friend allow me to put this question, as he may have the information? In what sort of medical category was he supposed to be when he went into the Army?

Mr. Simmons: Probably the Under-Secretary will tell us that. This lad was called up for National Service. Within a few months his physical condition was

such that he collapsed on parade. He was sent home on leave as fit. His own doctor was horrified by his treatment, and this attitude was justified by what subsequently transpired. For months and months he was in and out of hospital coughing and spitting blood. The Army medicos did not understand the case, so the easiest way out was an operation. The operation was refused and he was given detention. The man worried about his mother who was ill and he went absent on leave again and again.
There must have been some reason for this lad's conduct—some psychological reason. Did the Army care? No. They had got their talons on this fragment of humanity, physically ill, mentally confused and terribly unhappy, and they concentrated on punishing him when they ought to have been trying to understand him. That is the gravamen of my charge against the War Office, that they never tried to understand this lad. How do the glowing reports of the new Army, with comforts for the men, bedside reading lamps, and kindly understanding officers, square up with sordid tale of inhuman disregard for the feelings of a young National Service man? Is there an Army Welfare Service with trained welfare officers, or is that only for the crack regiments?
Does the fact that the War Office can now get cheap conscripts by compulsion make them feel that they can treat men as they used to treat the pre-1914 soldiers, as the dregs of humanity? Where was the Army Legal Aid Service? This lad was sent, under military escort, within three miles of his home to face a police court charge. His father learnt of it from the evening newspaper. The lad was afforded no legal assistance. The officer who accompanied him acted as a hostile witness.
What a picture. Imagine this youth, uneducated, bemused, alone, standing a tragic figure in the dock, feeling that the whole world was against him, and the officer in whose care he was placed, like Peter denying him, like Pilate washing his hands of him. Imagine the feelings of this fine soldier, his father, reading in the evening paper that his son had been sent down for four months without a word having been said about his background, his mentality or of any other mitigating circumstances.
I know that the United-Secretary will shelter behind red tape. The War Office did not want to communicate with his family for fear of causing trouble with the family. But youths who are in trouble need their families more than ever. That is what families are for. They all come together when there is trouble. They stand together and fight shoulder to shoulder against the trouble which assails them.
The Army authorities have some responsibility for separating this lad from his family, knowing he was uneducated, illiterate and ill and, having separated him from his family, for abdicating their position of responsibility for protecting and caring for him. I know that I shall be told that he did not apply for legal aid. What lack of imagination. They know lie was going to the police court to face a charge. It ought to have been the duty of the Army to supply legal aid—never mind about his having to apply for it. In any case, if the Army could not help him they might have refrained from ganging up against him.
I wonder how the recruiting figures would react if these cases became publicised as they ought to be as long as they go on. I do not apologise for speaking with some heat and bitterness. I was a private soldier. I never reached any higher rank. I am the eternal private. I think his thoughts and feel his feelings. I have never got above myself. I gladly identify myself with the bottom dog every time.
The lad serving four months in prison is not the guilty party. The guilty men are the unimaginative brutes who still have far too much say in the War Office, the commanding officers who fail to understand the minds and entirely ignore the souls of the youths whose mental and spiritual as well as physical welfare should be their sacred trust.
This indictment goes wider than the case of Gunner Shillingford. It concerns the youth of this nation which is now conscripted for military service. Gunner Shillingford is but one of many. His treatment, if widely known, would cause many parents much mental anguish. What is the answer of the War Office to anxious parents of such boys as Gunner Shillingford?

8.33 p.m.

Mr. George Wigg: I am very glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Brierley Hill (Mr. Simmons) has raised this case tonight. Our constituencies are next door to each other. Many of his constituents have relatives living in my constituency and many of my constituents have relatives living in his. We are in an area where there is very strong family feeling and my hon. Friend, who has his roots in the Black Country, is quite right to express some of the indignation which is shared not only by him and by Gunner Shillingsford's family but by Shillingsford's trade union colleagues. A national executive member of a very important trade union came to see me about this case.
I do not go all the way with my hon. Friend. I do not think that Shillingsford was sentenced to detention for refusing to undergo an operation. I think that that is a mistake of fact. Likewise, I do not think that Shillingsford was awarded 42 days' detention merely for two days' absence. There must have been a more serious charge than that. What I am sure about is that this poor boy—and I use that word in a compassionate sense—is a victim of a machine which he does not understand.
The Army authorities and those who have the honour to hold Her Majesty's Commission have enormous powers for good and for evil. Sometimes, unfortunately, those powers for good are riot used even when they are readily to hand. Conversely, the powers to oppress an individual can only too easily be put into operation.
I have gone into this case with very great care. I am going to pass over the period of Shillingsford's service up to the time when he was handed over to the civil police, except to tell my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Brixton (Lieut.-Colonel Lipton) that this lad's medical category was Grade I. It is one of the complaints of his parents that he was given a high medical grade against the weight of the evidence of those who knew him—for instance, of the family doctor, who was surprised that this rather under-developed boy should pass in such a high medical category. But not only was this boy under-developed physically, he was also under-developed mentally. The evidence I have is that he could not


read and write when he went into the Army, and it may be that it is to the Army's credit that in the two years and four months which he spent in the Army he managed to write quite a simple letter home.
It is clear that he has not been a very satisfactory soldier. He has been arraigned on a number of occasions for military offences of some gravity, and no doubt the Under-Secretary of State will tell us more about that later. But in July an escort arrived late one evening at Brierley Hill police station. It is important to remember that the police authorities here have behaved with complete propriety and, I may say, with great humanity. If the Army authorities, his commanding officer and those responsible for him, had behaved half as kindly as the superintendent at Brierley Hill behaved, then I am quite sure that my hon. Friend would not have raised this case tonight.
The facts are that this boy, having learned to read and write, put his new art to such use as to forge a Post Office savings account, so it was alleged, and of that charge he was subsequently convicted. The summons was served on him, and it is a requirement of King's Regulations—and on this occasion I have used the copy of King's Regulations which is in the Library, and which I hope is up to date—

The Under-Secretary of State for War (Mr. J. R. H. Hutchison): Queen's Regulations.

Mr. Wigg: I am sorry; old habits die hard.
I invite the attention of the Under-Secretary to paragraph 598 of Queen's Regulations which lays down certain procedure. It is required that in the Standing Orders of every unit attention shall be drawn to the fact that if a soldier receives a summons from a civil court he will at once make that information available to his commanding officer.
In this case, as I understand, Shilling-ford was undergoing detention when the summons was received, and it was, therefore, the duty of those who had him in their custody to ensure that certain things were done. They did the first thing; they sent an escort with Shilling-ford, but with no explanation of the

charges which were pending at all, and delivered him to the Brierley Hill police station. There, the civil police did all they could—a senior officer was brought out of bed late at night—for the lad's comfort, but it never occurred to those who had sent the escort to communicate with his family and to make any preparations for defence at all.
It is a requirement of the next paragraph of Queen's Regulations, paragraph 599, that when a soldier is charged with an offence before a civil court near the station where his unit is quartered, an officer will be detailed from the unit to attend and watch the proceedings. The paragraph goes on to say:
An officer having personal knowledge of the case will be detailed for this duty if any such officer is available.
The first question which I put to the Under-Secretary is this. Were efforts made to secure the attendance of an officer who knew Gunner Shillingford? I hope that the Under-Secretary of State is listening to that point. I ask the specific question: was an effort made to ensure that an officer who knew Shilling-ford attended at the civil court? Because whether an effort was made or not, such an officer did not attend. An officer turned up the next day at the civil court and said he knew nothing about Shilling-ford at all. He proceeded, as was his duty, to inform the court of the charge which had been made against this man.
I should be hopelessly out of order if I got involved in what took place in the court, but I may say this. It did not seem to occur to anyone—certainly not to the military authorities—that it was a duty to make any effort at all to inform this boy of his rights as regards legal aid. No effort was made. The boy did not know what his rights were. The officer who attended him felt no responsibility at all for the boy. The magistrates' clerk did not conceive it to be his duty. Forthwith, the magistrates heard the case and the boy was sentenced to four months' imprisonment, and, of course, he is serving that sentence at the present time.
When the case came to me I took a rather different course. I wrote to the Home Secretary and asked him to look into it on the basis of the information which had been supplied to me, because I was less concerned with reform of the


Army than I was with trying to help the boy. I am trying to reform the Army in another place. That is a rather more formidable job than trying to help this man.
What I want to ask the Under-Secretary of State is this. Did the PostmasterGeneral—and, after all, it was the Postmaster-General who initiated the summons—inform the military authorities that this charge was pending? Or was it that the summons was just served in the ordinary way? Was any notification made to any higher formation that this charge was pending? Did any senior officer know of the fact that Shillingford was to be brought forward on a charge of this serious nature? What I also want to know, if the hon. Gentleman will be kind enough to tell us, is, at what point the machinery broke down, because I am quite sure that he will agree that even if all the rules were fulfilled—and I do not think they were—there was a very great lack of kindness and humanity in dealing with this very difficult case.
I have tried to put a fairly moderate statement on the matter, but, like my hon. Friend, I feel very strongly about this case. As I read the papers on it I could not help casting my mind back to answers that were given me earlier this week by the Secretary of State for War dealing with another case. I refer to the case of what the Secretary of State for War called "jubilations" at Sandhurst, which I described as a "disorder."
On that occasion we had a number of very well educated young men—60 per cent. of them came from public schools —who damaged public property worth, according to the Secretary of State, £60, although the information I have is that it was over £200 worth; and five people found themselves in hospital, one of them for as long as 14 days. I eventually dragged out of the Secretary of State for War the fact that no disciplinary action of any kind had been taken against the men who had damaged public property and who had caused damage to limb: no action of any kind whatever.
When we contrast the action of the Secretary of State for War and very senior officers indeed in dealing with the cadets at Sandhurst, and what happened to this poor boy—physically ill, mentally a borderline case, fetched before a civil

court, handed over to the civil police—one cannot help feeling that the Army has got very little to its credit.
I share my hon. Friend's feelings of compassion for and sympathy with not only the boy but also his family, because Mr. Shillingford was a distinguished soldier in the First World War. He served his country in a humble capacity; but, after all, the dirty work is done by the private soldiers. Now the Under-Secretary of State has a chance of saying that although Private Shillingford has served only in the ranks—like his father —he is going to use his influence with the Home Secretary to put right the very great wrong that the Army has perpetrated against this poor lad.

8.45 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel Marcus Lipton: I should like to make a very brief intervention, because I know that the House will want to hear the fullest possible explanation from the Under-Secretary. This case illuminates one aspect of our National Service arrangements which has caused me considerable disquiet for some time. It is this. When a young man is called up for National Service no regard seems to be paid by the persons responsible for the medical examination of the potential recruit to medical reports that have been or can be provided by the recruit's private medical practitioner.
How does it come about that subnormal men—definitely subnormal, as in this case—come to be serving in the Services at all? We recently had reports of a really terrible case, which happened to be in the Royal Air Force, where an obviously subnormal man had been subjected to the most diabolical treatment at the hands of a non-commissioned officer.
Cases have been brought to my notice of my own constituents, although there is no time to go into details, where no regard whatever has been paid to medical evidence provided by the recruit to show that the man should never have been in the Services at all. This seems to be one more case where a man, obviously unfit for any kind of National Service, has been brought into the Services, and has caused immense trouble to the authorities and immense heart-ache to his relatives.
I hope that the Under-Secretary will perhaps pay some attention to what I regard as a very serious defect in the present


arrangements, as a result of which subnormal men are brought into the Services with the kind of consequences to which my hon. Friends have just referred.

8.47 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for War (Mr. J. R. H. Hutchison): It is clear that the three hon. Gentlemen who have been speaking on this unhappy question tonight must have felt strongly about it to have been impelled to stay here until the curtain is literally closing on the Parliamentary scene for the Summer Recess.
The case is a complicated and, as I have said, unhappy one, but I am sad that the hon. Member for Brierley Hill (Mr. Simmons) should have used what I think was rather intemperate language about the way in which Gunner Shillingford has been treated. I agree with him—we have been in correspondence for some time—that it is a difficult case. Nobody will deny that. But he really painted the picture unfairly blackly in the words that he used tonight. Let me just elaborate on that a little bit to show why I think his castigation of the War Office and the Army authorities in general was unfair.
This man, a National Service man, was called up in March, 1950. May I at this point say to the hon. and gallant Member for Brixton (Lieut.-Colonel Lipton) that the medical examination of these men who are coming into the Services is not an Army responsibility? It is carried through by the Ministry of Labour. It is true that when they come into the Service we examine them afresh, but the original reception—which, if the hon. and gallant Member wishes to probe further, he should take up with the Ministry of Labour—is not a War Office responsibility.
Gunner Shillingford has had, since he came into the Army, a chequered career, including periods of absence without leave, periods of detention which resulted from those periods of absence without leave, interspersed, as the hon. Member for Brierley Hill said, with a number of visits to hospital.

Mr. Simmons: For long stages.

Mr. Hutchison: That is perfectly true; but, particularly, the absences without leave were becoming more frequent, and

working to a climax towards the finish. We were most anxious that at these hospitals, and, indeed, this was so throughout, there should be a thorough examination of this man in order to make sure what he was suffering from. Time and again in his own interests he was implored to allow what is known as bronchoscopy, which is the method of being able to diagnose whether there is incipient T.B. or not, and he refused. The hon. Member for Brierley Hill at one time wrote a most helpful letter on this subject. He wrote to Mr. Shillingford, the father, saying,
I am sure the War Office want to help your son"—
His words tonight do not seem to ring very true when set alongside those helpful and far-sighted words—
by giving him a medical examination to find out if he is fit to continue to serve or should be discharged, but if he keeps going away it makes things very difficult for those who want to help.
How true. I appreciated that letter very much, and it is in very flagrant contrast to the words he used tonight.
Let me come to 1952, because it was really in 1952 that the problem became acute. Late in 1951, this soldier had gone absent. There was a further period of absence early in 1952—the second one dating from 29th January to 12th February—and the period would have been longer than 12th February if it had not been that a medical certificate was sent stating that he was ill at home on that date. Although he did not come back to his unit until 26th February, the period was cut down to 12th February so as to be as fair as possible to this soldier. His period of absence without leave therefore ended on 12th February. He was, as has been stated, sentenced to 28 days' detention.
The next dates which I would ask the House to notice are those from 13th to 30th April and 7th to 10th June, when it was again alleged that he was absent without leave. For the first of these periods he was awarded 28 days' further detention. For the second period, he was tried by district court-martial on 30th June and sentenced to 42 days' detention because his absence without leave had been going on at an increasing tempo. It was contended by the defending officer at the district court martial that the


prosecution had failed to show how long he had been absent, and the proceedings were quashed by the Judge Advocate General on 14th July.

Mr. Wigg: The proceedings were quashed after he had been convicted by a civil court.

Mr. Hutchison: That is true.

Mr. Wigg: Did the Under-Secretary make representation to the civil authorities? Did he draw attention of the Home Secretary to the fact that the court-martial proceedings had been quashed, because it might well be that the civil court in awarding him four months' imprisonment would have been influenced by the evidence of the officer that he had been given 42 days' detention.

Mr. Hutchison: My hon. Friend who is here is interested in the civil aspect of this case. I myself have no jurisdiction and no knowledge of that side of the matter. He has listened carefully, and what has been said in the debate will be noted by him and account taken of it. I wanted to bring this forward because this is another example, as I think, of considerate and understanding treatment. This period of 42 days did not result solely from two days' absence at all, but followed very much longer periods. As the hon. Member for Brierley Hill was corrected by his hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) about the other little error he made in his accusation about 28 days for refusing an operation, we will let that pass.
The case came up before the civil court. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Dudley did not let me know the detailed points that he has brought up tonight, because it is impossible to answer "off the cuff" the details which he has mentioned. All I can tell him—this answers one of his questions—is that the officer sent with Gunner Shillingford was an officer of his own regiment, and I think I can safely say that, being in the same regiment, he knew Gunner Shilling-ford.

Mr. Simmons: The officer said in the court that he did not know Gunner Shillingford. He said that Gunner Shillingford was always absent without leave, and therefore nobody at all knew him.

Mr. Hutchison: There again I have to submit to the House that what happened in the civil court is not my responsibility. I did not know that the civil court proceedings had revealed that.
The other point was how the summons was served on this man and whether the Postmaster-General had carried it out properly. All I can tell the hon. Member here and now—the matter will be gone into—is that I have no knowledge of any irregularity in the matter of the serving of the summons as compared with other cases of a similar type.
No one who has listened to the catalogue that I have had to read, and which the hon. Members have outlined, can feel anything but sympathy for a man who has fallen into a tangle of troubles of this kind. Whether he has fallen into them or they have been imposed upon him is a matter for consideration. Something has gone wrong. The question which is really exercising hon. Members opposite is whether it is we in the War Office who have gone wrong or whether it is the man himself. I submit to them that there are two main considerations that we have to hear in our minds in considering this, and indeed similar cases, for when there are 450,000 men in the Army we are bound to get these problem cases cropping up all the time. But do not let us pretend that, because one case has gone off the rails, the whole Army system is bad.
The two considerations that we have to bear in mind are how best the case can be treated from the point of view of the Army and how it can best be treated from the man's point of view. I believe that in the light of both considerations we acted properly. I believe that if we allow a man who becomes a nuisance, not perhaps a calculating nuisance but a nuisance, to get his way and his release, we are pointing the finger to the premium that can be put on a nuisance value, and we start at once to undermine the whole of the Army discipline and system.
I know that the hon. Member opposite does not think very much of the Army anyhow, but I ask him for one moment to look at it dispassionately and to think what the effect would be if, as soon as a man said, "I want to be quit of the Army; I am going to make a nuisance of myself," he was allowed to be quit of the Army. He would be followed by


hundreds of others. I believe that from the Army's point of view we had to refuse to be put into the position of giving release because the man himself wanted it, and wanted it for that reason only.
Now about the man himself. As I have said, this question of the health of the man is all-important. We wanted to get him put right. We wanted him to have this diagnosis. At home he may not get it. I believe his chances of being cured were very much better in the Army than at his home.
I have left myself perhaps too little time, or I have been left too little time, but I want to say that the 42 days' detention now having been quashed—this is the note on which I wish to end—the man's period of service with the Colours is at an end, and he will, forthwith, be released from his liability to any

further service with the Colours. We are perhaps, therefore, only holding a postmortem on something which has happened, because Gunner Shillingford will no longer be serving with the Colours.
There remains only, then, the question of his part-time service, and that we shall have to go into. I should have liked to answer certain of the other questions, but there is, I am afraid, little enough time. However, perhaps the final answer that I have given is really what hon. Members opposite were seeking to hear from me.

Adjourned accordingly at Nine o'Clock till Tuesday, 14th October, pursuant to the Resolution of the House yesterday.